
Glass _ 

Book 



Copyright N?. 



I 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



WORKS OF JOHN MILEY, 
ATONEMENT IN CHRIST... 


LL.D. 


....$1 20 


SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. VOL. 1 

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. VOL. II 

CLASS MEETINGS 




.... 3 00 

.... 3 00 

45 





the: 



ATONEMENT is CHRIST 



0£OC 71V EV XpCGTUl KOOJUOV tidTaXkaGGlOV idVTif-i 
2 Cor. v. ig. 



BY 

JOHN MILEY, D.D. 



Professor of Systematic Theology in Drew Theological Seminary 
Madison, N. J. 



ELEVENTH THOUSAND 



NewYork: EATON & MAINS. 
Cincinnati: JENNINGS & GRAHAM. 



*s 



UBRABYoTe 
JUL • 

As3 o- 

CO' 



3 Ha 



V 



Copyright, 1879* b Y 
PHILLIPS &, HUN' 
New York 



Copyright, 1907, by 
JOHN MILEY 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I. 
Introduction. 

PAGB 

L Scope of the Subject 13 

2. Broader Scope in Calvinism 13 

3. Narrower Scope in Arminianism 16 

4. No Fact of Soteriology Neglected 16 

5. Treatment under Offices of Christ 16 

6. Distinction of Fact and Doctrine 11 

1. Question of Fact the more Yital 11 

8. Specially a Question of Revelation 19 

9. The Doctrine must Interpret Scripture. 19 

10. Its Scientific Relation to Theology 19 

11. Definition of Atonement 23 

CHAPTER H. 

Reality of Atonement. 

I. 

WITNESSING FACTS. 

1. A Message of Salvation 26 

2. The Salvation in Christ 26 

3. Salvation in his Suffering 21 

4. His Redeeming Death Necessary 28 

5. Only Explanation of his Suffering 30 

6. Necessity of Faith to Salvation 30 

1. Christ a Unique Saviour 35 

II. 

WITNESSING TERMS. 

1 . Atonement 39 

2 Reconciliation 42 

3. Propitiation 45 

4. Redemption 47 

5. Substitution 52 



4 Contents. 

ni. 

PRIESTHOOD AND SACRIFICE. 

MM 

1. The Priesthood of Christ 54 

2. His Sacrificial Office 55 

3. Himself a Sacrifice for Sin 55 

4. Typical Sacrifices 56 

6. Priestly Intercession in Heaven 58 

CHAPTER III. 

Necessity for Atonement. 

1 Limitation of the Question 60 

2. The Necessity a Truth of Scripture 61 

3. Proof in the Mode of Mediation 61 

L 

NECESSITY IN MORAL GOVERNMENT. 

1. None without such Ground 63 

2. Fact of a Moral Government 64 

II. 

REQUISITES OF MORAL GOVERNMENT. 

1. Adjustment to Subjects G5 

2. Specially for Man 66 

»'. A Law of Duty 66 

it. The Sanction of Rewards 67 

3. Divine Apportionment of Rewards 68 

IH. 

MEASURE OF PENALTY. 

1. No Arbitrary Appointment 69 

2. Determining Laws 69 

i. The Demerit of Sin 69 

it. The Rectoral Function of Penalty 69 

IY. 

NECESSITY FOR PENALTY. 

1 . From its Rectoral Office 11 

2. From the Divine Holiness ?2 

3. From the Divine Goodness 73 

4. A Real Necessity for Atonement 73 

5. Nature of the Atonement Indicated 73 



Contents. 6 

CHAPTER IV. 

Schemes without Atonement 

I. 

AFTER THE PENALTY. pAM 

1 Salvation Excluded 71 

2 Final Happiness not a Salvation 11 

3. Impossible in Endless Penalty , , 18 

TL 

m SOVEREIGN FORGIVENESS. 

1. An Assumption against Facts 19 

2. Contrary to Divine Government 19 

8. Subversive of all Government 80 

III. 

THROUGH REPENTANCE. 

1. Repentance Necessary 81 

2. Only Kind Naturally Possible 81 

3. Such Repentance Inevitable 82 

4. Sin Unrealized 83 

5. True Repentance only by Grace. , . 84 

IV. 

SPECIAL FACTS. 

1. Forgiving one Another 85 

2. Parental Forgiveness 86 

3. Parable of the Prodigal Son \ 81 

CHAPTER V. 

Theories of Atonement. 

L 

PRELIMINARY. 

1. Earlier Views , „ . 90 

2. Scientific Treatment 92 

3. Popular Number of Theories 95 

4. Scientific Enumeration 96 

6. Only two Theories 100 



6 Contents. 

n. 

SUMMARY REVIEW. PA „ 

1. Theory of Vicarious Repentance 102 

2. Theory of Redemption by Love 104 

3. Self -propitiation in Self-sacrifice 106 

4. Realistic Theory 112 

5. Mystical Theory 114 

6. Middle Theory 114 

7. Conditional Penal Substitution 115 

8. Three Leading Theories 119 

CHAPTER VL 

Theory of Moral Influence. 

I. 

FACTS OF THE THEORY. 

1. The Redemptive Law 121 

2. Socinian 122 

3. Its Dialectics 123 

4. Truth of Moral Influence 125 

II. 

ITS REFUTATION. 

1. By the Fact of an Atonement 129 

2. By its Necessity. . . , 131 

3. By the Peculiar Saving Work of Christ 132 

4. Not a Theory of Atonement 133 

CHAPTER VII. 
Theory of Satisfaction. 

I. 

PREFATORY. 

1. Position in Theology 135 

2. Formation L36 

3. Two Vicarious Factors 137 

4 Concerned with Penal Substitution 1 38 

II. 

ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY. 

1. Satisfaction in Punishment 139 

2. By a Substitute in Penalty 140 



Contents. 7 

PA4H 

S. Three Senses of the Substitution 140 

*. In Identical Penalty 140 

ii. In Equal Penalty 141 

Hi. In Equivalent Penalty 142 

4. Absolute Substitution 142 

m. 

JUSTICE AND ATONEMENT, 

1. Their Relation. 144 

2. Distinctions of Justice 144 

i. Commutative L45 

tt. Distributive ...... 145 

t tt. Public 145 

3. Punitive Justice and Satisfaction. 145 

IV. 

PRINCIPLES OP THE THEORY. 

1. The Demerit of Sin 146 

2. A Divine Punitive Justice. 147 

3. Sin Ought to be Punished. 148 

4. Penal Satisfaction a Necessity of Justice 149 

5. The Determining Principle 149 

V 

ANALYTIC TESTING OP THE THEORY. 

1. Justice as Satisfiable 150 

t. Mistake Easy 151 

tt. Satisfiable only in Personality 152 

Hi. True of Divine Justice 152 

2. Question of Necessity for Penal Satisfaction 153 

3. No Necessity in Divine Disposition 154 

4. As Concerning the Divine Rectitude 156 

5. No Necessity of Divine Veracity. , .... 158 

6 No Necessity of Judicial Rectitude 162 

7 Elements of Punitive Satisfaction. 167 

8. No Satisfaction in Mere Suffering 167 

9. Only Satisfaction in Punishing Sin 167 

10. Satisfaction by Substitution Impossible 168 

i. The Satisfaction Necessary 169 

tt. The Substitution Maintained 172 



8 Contents. 

Hi. No Answer to the Necessity 113 

iv. No such Answer Possible 176 

11. The Theory Self-destructive 118 

VI. 

FACTS OP THE THEORY IN OBJECTION. 

1 The Punishment of Christ 119 

2. Redeemed Sinners without Guilt 180 

3 A Limited Atonement 186 

4 Element of Commutative Justice 181 



CHAPTER VIU. 

Governments Theory. 

I. 

PRELIMINARY FACTS. 

Substitutional Atonement 190 

Conditional Substitution 191 

Substitution in Suffering 191 



The Grotian Theory 198 

The Consistent Arminian Theory 209 

IL 

PUBLIC JUSTICE. 

1. Relation to Atonement 211 

2. One with Divine Justice 218 

3. One with Distributive Justice 218 

4. Ground of its Penalties 219 

6. End of its Penalties 221 

6. Remissibility of its Penalties 228 

1. Place for Atonement 229 

8. Nature of Atonement Determined 229 

ni. 

THEORY AND NECESSITY FOR ATONEMENT. 

1 An Answer to the Real Necessity 230 

2. Grounded in the Deepest Necessity 231 

3. Rectoral Value of Penalty 233 

4. Rectoral Value of Atonement 231 

5. Only Sufficient Atonement 243 

6. True Sense of Satisfaction 244 



Contents. 9 

IY. 

THEORY AND SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 

PASS 

1. Terms of Divine "Wrath 245 

2, Terms of Divine Righteousness. 247 

3,, Terms of Atonement 248 

4. Terms of Atoning Suffering 250 

V. 

THEORY AND SCRIPTURE PACTS. 

1. Guilt of Redeemed Sinners 255 

2. Forgiveness in Justification 258 

3. Grace in Forgiveness 259 

4. Universality of Atonement 261 

5. Universal Overture of Grace 261 

6. Doctrinal Result 261 

7. Relation of Atonement to Childhood 262 

CHAPTER IX. 
Sufficiency of the Atonement. 

L 

THE HOLINESS OP CHRIST. 

1. A Necessary Element 266 

3. Scripture Yiew 267 

II. 

HIS GREATNESS. 

1. An Element of Atoning Yalue 267 

2. An Infinite Yalue in Christ , 268 

m. 

HIS VOLUNTARINESS. 

1. A Necessary Fact 269 

2 Christ a Voluntary Substitute 269 

3 Atoning Yalue 269 

IY. 

HIS DmNE SONSHTP. 

1. Sense of Atoning Yalue 270 

2. Measure of Yalue 271 



10 Contents. 

V. 

HIS MUMAN BROTHERHOOD. PAaB 

1. Mediation must Express an Interest 273 

3. The Principle in Atonement 2*3 

VL 

HIS BUTTERING. 

1 Extreme Views 274 

2. A Necessary Element 275 

3. An Infinite Sufficiency 276 

CHAPTER X. 
A Lesson for all Intelligences. 

1. Atonement for Man only 280 

2. Broader Relation to Moral Beings 281 

3. One Moral Constitution of All 282 

4. The same Moral Motivity in All 283 

5. The Cross a Power with All 283 

6. Higher Orders Interested in Redemption 283 

7. Universal Lordship of Christ 286 

8. Grandeur of the Atonement . . . 290 

CHAPTER XL 

Objections to the Atonement. 

I. 

AN IRRATIONAL SCHEME. 

1. A Pretentious Assumption 294 

2. Analogies of Providence 295 

II. 

A VIOLATION OP JUSTICE. 

1. No Infringement of Rights 296 

2. Analogy of Vicarious Suffering 296 

3. Atonement Clear of Injustice 296 

4 Vantage-ground against Moral Theory 297 

ni. 

A RELEA8EMENT FROM DUTT. 

1. Fatal if Valid ... 298 

2. Nugatory on a True Doctrine 299 



Contents. 11 

IV. 

AN ASPERSION OP DIVINE GOODNESS. 

TASK 

1. Reason of Law and Penalty 300 

2. No Aspersion of Goodness 300 

3. Divine Love Magnified 300 

CHAPTER XLL 

Universality of the Atonement. 

I. 

DETERMINING LAW OP EXTENT. 

i. Intrinsic Sufficiency for All 304 

2. Divine Destination Determinative 305 

3. The True Inquiry 310 

n. 

PLEASURE OP THE FATHER. 

1. Question of his Sovereignty 311 

2. In one Relation to All -. 312 

3. A Common State of Evil 313 

4. Voice of the Divine Perfections 313 

m. 

PLEASURE OP THE SON. 

1. Application of Preceding Facts 315 

2. Atoning Work the Same 316 

3. A Question of his Love 316 

IV. 

S0RD7TURE TESTIMONY. 

1 . Proof -texts for Limitation 31 8 

2 Proof-texts for Universality .... 321 

3. In Extent of the Evil of Sin 322 

4. The Great Commission 324 

i. The Gospel for All 325 

ii. Salvation the Privilege of All 325 

*«. Saving Faith the Duty of All 325 

w. The Atonement for All 328 



12 Contents. 

V. 

FALLACIES OT LIMITATION. 

1. Facts Admitted. 329 

2. Inconsistent with the Divine Sincerity 330 

3. Sufficiency of Atonement in Vindication 330 

4. True Sense of Sufficiency • • • 331 

5. Sufficiency only with Destination 332 

6. Limited in Satisfaction Scheme 333 

7. Only a Seeming Inconsistency 338 

8. Mixed State of Elect and Non-elect 339 

9. Secret and Preceptive Divine Will 341 

lm»K S* 3 



THE 

ATONEMENT IN CHEIST. 



♦ »» 



CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

rPHE preliminary statement of a few facts and prin- 
ciples will be helpful in the more formal discussion 
of atonement. 

1. Scope of the Subject. — The atonement may be 
treated in a broader or in a more restricted sense. In 
the former sense it may include the whole of soteriol- 
ogy, while in the latter it may be treated specially as 
the ground of justification, or the forgiveness of sin. 
In each case the comprehension is logically determined 
by cardinal doctrines of the system in connection with 
which the subject is treated. 

2. Broader Scope in Calvinism. — The present discus- 
sion, so far as concerned with the doctrinal relations of 
the atonement, will not be limited to its connection 
with the Calvinian and Arminian systems. Yet their 
prominence in the circle of evangelical doctrines, and 
in the maintenance of a real and necessary atonement 
in the mediation of Christ, will justify a chief attention 
to its scientific relations to them. It will, therefore, be 
proper thus early to indicate the comprehension of the 
question in these two systems respectively. 

Both Calvinism and Arminianism assert the forgive- 



14 iNTEODucnoir. 

ness of sin in justification. Bit the former cannot con- 
sistently maintain the same sense of forgiveness as the 
latter ; while it includes much more in justification, and 
accounts for the same on its own distinctive grounds. 
In Calvinism the active obedience of Christ supple- 
ments his passive obedience in the atonement. His 
penal suffering is a substitute for the merited punish- 
ment of the elect, and in full satisfaction of the penalty 
of justice against them. Such a substitution must dis- 
charge the subjects of its grace from all personal 
amenability to penal retribution.' But the divine law 
also requires personal righteousness ; and to supply this 
lack in the elect there is accounted to them the per- 
sonal righteousness of Christ. Thus, according to this 
doctrine, two vicarious elements — a substituted punish- 
ment and a substituted obedience — unite in the suffi- 
ciency of the atonement. The two must combine in 
such a justification of the elect as the divine law im- 
peratively requires. This is the radical idea in the Re- 
formed soteriology. The nature of the atonement is 
determined accordingly. It follows that in this scheme 
the history of the doctrine of atonement is largely a 
history of the doctrine of justification. 8 But the justi- 
fication is not the same as that in Arminianism. 

In such a scheme both the active and passive o*be- 
dience of Christ must go to the account of the elect. 
Any principle which would admit the latter would 
equally admit the former. And both are for the elect 

1 Chap, vii, VI, 2. 

• Ritschl : " History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and 

Reconciliation." 



Facts and Principles. 16 

by compact between the Father and the Son. Any 
failure in such result would, therefore, be a failure in 
the very covenant of redemption. A sovereign bestow- 
ment of the saving benefits of such an atonement is an 
integral part of the redemptive economy. 1 In such 
facts we have the logical reason for so full an inclusion 
of soteriology in the question of atonement. 

3. Narrower Scope in Arminianism. — According to 
the Arminian soteriology we are justified in the for- 
giveness of sin. This is not the same as a discharge 
after merited punishment. And the personal holiness 
of Christ, while necessary to his redemptive mediation, 
is not accounted to us as an element in our justification. 
The atonement in his blood is the true and necessary 
ground of forgiveness. Yet it is not such a ground that 
the forgiveness must accrue to the redeemed. Justifi- 
cation or forgiveness is conditioned on a true faith in 
Christ. The required faith may be exercised, but is 
subject to no necessitating power of grace. Hence the 
atonement is only a provisory ground, not an intrinsic- 
ally causal ground, of forgiveness and salvation. 

This is the view of atonement in the Arminian sys- 
tem. Such it must be in scientific consistency, how- 
ever it may be historically. No system receives com- 
pleteness at once ; but such is the historic as well as the 
consistent doctrine in Wesley an Arminianism. This 
position is verified, not so much by Methodistic litera- 
ture directly on the doctrine of atonement — of which 
there is very little — as by that on intimately related 
cardinal truths ; most of all by the common faith of 
1 " Westminster Confession," chap, viii, 1. 



13 Intboduction. 

Methodism and the uniform utterance of its many pul 
pits. In such faith and utterance there has ever been 
given forth, and without hesitation, the universality oi 
the atonement in a real sufficiency for all, notwithstand- 
ing many perish ; the true conditionality of salvation ; 
the common gracious ability to believe in Christ and be 
saved. The atonement in accord with such facts is 
provisory, not absolute or directly saving. Hence the 
logical reason for its treatment in the Arminian system 
in its more special and restricted relation to the for- 
giveness of sin. While it is the ground of all the ben- 
efits of grace in a completed salvation, such benefits, as 
really conditional, properly form a distinct part of the 
soteriology of the Gospel. 

4. No Fact of Soteriology Neglected.— -Nor does such 
restriction imply a neglect or slight estimation of any 
fact in the economy of redemption. The benefits of 
redemptive grace in an actual salvation, while traced 
to the atonement as their only source, are treated sep- 
arately from the nature of the atonement itself. As 
conditional to us, and conditional in the truest sense of 
synergism as against monergum, any proper method 
must assign them a distinct place of treatment. 

5. Treatment wider Offices of Christ.— The atonement 
has often been treated under the three offices of Christ 
as prophet, priest, and king. This is legitimate in a 
theory which makes it comprehensive of soteriology. 
It is, therefore, proper for Calvinism, and has been 
common with this system. It would answer for the 
Socinian atonement, and for any particular phase of it, 
provided there were held in connection with it such 



Facts and Pbinciples. 17 

a Christology as would render a proper account of 
these offices. For on this theory the functions of the 
prophetic and kingly offices of Christ enter into his 
redemptive mediation as really as the functions of his 
priestly office. But such a method is not in accord- 
ance with the Arminian scheme. In this, as in any 
true view, the prophetic office of Christ fulfilled no 
function in his specific atoning work. And his kingly 
office, so far as related to the atonement, has its proper 
function in the dispensation of its benefits. The atone- 
ment in itself appertains to the priestly office of Christ, 
and could be treated under it alone with higher pro- 
priety of method than under the three offices. 

6. Distinction of Fact and Doctrine. — We should 
distinguish between the fact and the doctrine of 
atonement. Are the vicarious sufferings of Christ the 
ground of forgiveness and salvation? In what sense 
are they such a ground ? These are distinct ques- 
tions, and open to distinct answers. The first concerns 
the fact of an atonement in the sacrifice of Christ; 
the second concerns its nature or doctrine. Nor does 
an affirmative answer to the first question determine 
the answer to the second. Were this so, all who hold 
the fact of an atonement would agree in the doctrine. 
But such is not the case. Different schemes of the- 
ology — and of an evangelical theology — while in the 
fullest accord on the fact, are widely divergent re- 
specting the theory. 

7. Question of Fact the more Vital. — Both questions 
are important, but that concerning the fact is the 
more vital. This gives us the reality of an atonement 



18 Introduction. 

in Christ. That atonement we may accept in faith, 
and receive the benefit of its grace before we attain 
to its philosophy. So accepted, it has the most salu- 
tary influence upon the religious life. To this both 
the experience of individual Christians and the his- 
tory of the Church bear witness. And the fact of an 
atonement has a deeper religious significance than any 
theory of its nature. 

Yet the question of theory is far from being an indif- 
ferent or merely speculative one. The atonement is most 
fundamental in Christianity. Hence the theory of it 
must hold a commanding position in any system of 
Christian doctrine, and largely draw into itself the 
interest of the system. This is apparent upon a ref- 
erence to the three great systems, which may be desig- 
nated as the Arminian, the Calvinian, and the Socinian. 
As are other cardinal doctrines of each, so is its doc- 
trine of atonement, or, conversely, as its doctrine of 
atonement, so are its other doctrines. 

In all profounder study the mind, by an inevitable 
tendency, searches for a philosophy of things. There 
is the same tendency in the deeper study of Christian 
truth. Thus, beyond the fact of an atonement, we 
search for a doctrine. We seek to understand its 
nature; what are its elements of atoning value; how 
it is the ground of divine forgiveness. We attempt its 
ratiwiale. It must have a philosophy; and one clear to 
the divine mind, whatever obscurity it may have to 
the human. Its clear apprehension would be helpful 
to faith in many minds. 1 

1 Marshall Randies: "Substitution: Atonement," pp. 2, 3. 



Facts and Pbinciples. 19 

8. /Specially a Question of Revelation. — The question 
respecting the fact of an atonement must be taken to 
the Scriptures for the only correct and authoritative 
answer. Nor is the answer so found in any ambiguity 
or doubt. It is decisively given in the many sacred 
facts and utterances which set forth the mediation of 
Christ, especially in his sufferings and death, as the 
true and only ground of forgiveness and salvation. 
These facts and utterances are so numerous and con- 
current, so direct and explicit, as to settle the question 
respecting the reality of an atonement in the most 
affirmative sense. 

9. The Doctrine must Interpret Scripture. — A doctrine 
of atonement, having its only sufficient ground in the 
Scriptures, must, in a strict and full sense, be scriptural. 
There can be no true scheme which does not fairly in- 
terpret the Scriptures. To construct a theory, and then 
to press all interpretation into conformity with it, would 
be as grievous a violation of scientific method in the- 
ology as in the case of a student of nature who should 
first formulate a law and then bend all relative facts 
into agreement with it. As the scientist should first 
study the facts, and then generalize them into such a 
law as they may warrant, and which, in turn, will prop- 
erly interpret them; so a true doctrine of atone- 
ment must be a construction in the light of Scripture 
facts and utterances, and such as will fairly interpret 
them. 

10. Its Scientific Relation to Theology. — That a doc- 
trine of atonement must fairly interpret the facts and 
terms of Scripture in which it is expressed, we hold to 



20 Introduction. 

be an imperative law. There is also a law of the high- 
est authority in logical method. It is the law of scien- 
tific accordance in intimately related doctrinal truths. 
It has its application to all scientific systems, and to the 
science of theology equally as to any other. In any 
and every system truth must accord with truth. In 
systematic theology doctrine must accord with doc- 
trine. Under this law a doctrine of atonement must be 
in scientific accord with cardinal doctrines vitally re- 
lated to it. 

This law, while imperative, neither leads us away 
from the authority of Scripture nor lands us in a 
sphere of mere speculation. All Christian doctrine, to 
be true, must be scriptural. Doctrines in a system, to 
be true, must be both accordant and scriptural. If dis- 
cordant or contradictory, some one or more must be 
both unscriptural and false. Hence this law of a scien- 
tific accordance in vitally related truths is consistent 
with the profoundest deference to the authority of rev- 
elation in all questions of Christian doctrine. 

This law may render valuable service in the con- 
struction and interpretation of Christian doctrine. As 
we may interpret Scripture by Scripture, so may we in- 
terpret doctrine by doctrine. Only, the interpreting 
doctrine must itself be certainly scriptural. As such, 
no Christian doctrine can fie out of accord with it. In 
any distinction of standard or determining doctrines, 
preference should be given to the more fundamental; 
especially to such as are most certainly scriptural. 
Accepting such a law in the interpretation of atone- 
ment, or in the determination of its nature, we are still 



Facts and Principles. 21 

rendering the fullest obedience to the authority of the 
Scriptures in Christian doctrine. 

In the line of these facts and principles this law may 
be of special service in testing different theories of 
atonement as they belong to different systems of the- 
ology. We shall the better understand the legitimacy 
and service of this application if we hold in clear view 
the two leading facts previously noted, that in any sys- 
tem of Christian theology the several doctrines, as con- 
stituting a system, must be in scientific agreement, and, 
as Christian, must be scriptural. Hence, as leading 
doctrines of the system are true or false, so is the doc- 
trine of atonement which is in accord with them. For 
illustration we may refer to the three leading systems 
previously named. 

If other peculiar and leading doctrines of the Socin- 
ian theology be true and scriptural, so is its atonement 
of Moral Influence. If its Christology and anthropology 
be true and scriptural, this atonement is in full harmony 
with the system ; and, further, is the only one which it 
needs or will admit. Clearly, it cannot admit either 
the Satisfaction or the Governmental theory. Both are 
out of harmony with its more fundamental and deter- 
mining doctrines, and hence are excluded by the law of 
a necessary accordance of such truths when brought 
into scientific relation. The Socinian scheme, by the 
nature of its anthropology and Christology, denies the 
need of such an atonement, and has no Christ equal to 
the making of one. But if on the leading doctrines of 
Christianity the truth is with the Calvinian or the Ar- 
niinian system, then the Socinian atonement is false. It 



22 Intboductiom: 

is so out of harmony with such doctrines that it cannot 
be true while they are true. 

If other cardinal doctrines of Calvinism are true, its 
doctrine of atonement is true. It is an integral part 
of the system, and in full harmony with every other 
part of it. The doctrines of divine sovereignty and 
decrees, of unconditional election to salvation, of the 
effectual calling and final perseverance of the elect, and 
that their salvation is monergistically wrought as it is 
sovereignly decreed, require an atonement which in its 
very nature is and must be effectual in the salvation of 
all for whom it is made. Such an atonement the sys- 
tem has in the absolute substitution of Christ, both in 
precept and penalty, in behalf of the elect. He fulfills 
the righteousness which the law requires of them, and 
suffers the punishment which their sins deserve. By 
the nature of the substitution both must go to their ac- 
count. Such a theory of atonement is in scientific ac- 
cord with the whole system. And the truth of the sys- 
tem would carry with it the truth of the theory. It 
can admit no other theory. Nor can such an atonement 
be true if the system be false. 

If the cardinal doctrines of the Arminian system, such 
as differentiate it from Calvinism, be true, then the 
atonement of Satisfaction, in the Calvinistic sense of it, 
cannot be true. If, as before noted, the atonement is 
really for all, and in the same sense sufficient for all, 
then it must be only provisory, and its saving benefits 
really conditional. And no other truths are more deeply 
wrought into Arminianism, whether original or Wes- 
leyan; none have a more uniform, constant, unqualified 



Facto and Pbincifles. 28 

Methodistic utterance. They are such facts of atone- 
ment, or facts in such logical relation to it, that they 
require a doctrine in scientific agreement with them. 

Such a doctrine is the special aim of this discussion — 
not without regard to consistency in the system, but 
specially because these facts are scriptural and the doc- 
trine agreeing with them scriptural and true. Certain 
it is, that the law of a necessary accordance in cardinal 
truths wrought into the same system, must bar the ad- 
mission of the Calvinistic doctrine of Satisfaction into 
the Arminian system. For such an atonement is nec- 
essarily saving, and must, therefore, bring with it un- 
conditional election, effectual calling, final persever- 
ance, monergism. A doctrine inseparably linked with 
such tenets never can be wrought into scientific accord- 
ance with the cardinal and distinctive doctrines of Ar- 
minianism. Nor can it be true while they are true. 

11. Definition of Atonement. — A true doctrine of 
atonement can be fully given only in its formal exposi- 
tion. Yet we give thus early a definition, with a few 
explanatory notes, that, so far as practicable by such 
means, we may place in view the doctrine which this 
discussion shall maintain. 

The vicarious sufferings of Christ are an atonement 
for sin as a conditional substitute for penalty, fulfilling y 
on the forgiveness of sin, the obligation of justice and the 
office of penalty in moral government. 

The sufferings of Christ are vicarious, not as incidental 
to a philanthropic or reformatory mission, but as en- 
dured for sinnerfe under divine judicial condemnation, 
that they might be forgiven and saved. 



24 Introduction. 

They are a substitute for penalty, not as the punish- 
ment of sin judicially inflicted upon Christ, but in 
such a rectoral relation to justice and law as renders 
them a true and sufficient ground of forgiveness. 

They are a conditional substitute for penalty, as a 
provisory measure of government, rendering forgive- 
ness, on proper conditions, consistent with the obliga- 
tions of justice in moral administration. Subjects of 
the atonement are none the less guilty simply on that 
account, as they would be under an atonement by pe- 
nal substitution, wherein Christ suffered the judicial 
punishment of sin in satisfaction of an absolute retrib- 
utive justice. Under a provisory substitution, the 
gracious franchise is in a privilege of forgiveness, to be 
realized only on its proper conditions. 

Thus the substitution of Christ in suffering fulfills 
the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in their 
relation to the ends of moral government. Justice has 
an imperative obligation respecting these ends ; and 
penalty, as the means of justice, a necessary office for 
their attainment. But penalty, as an element of law, is 
the means of good government, not only in its immi- 
nence or execution, but also through the moral ideas 
which it expresses. 1 Hence its infliction in punishment 
is not an absolute necessity to the ends of its office. 
The rectoral service of its execution may be substi 
tuted, and in every instance of forgiveness is substi- 
tuted, by the sufferings of Christ. The interest of 
moral government is thereby equally conserved.* 

The ends of justice thus concerned involve the pro- 
1 Ch. viii, HI, 3. » IbicU 4. 



Facts and Principles. 26 

foundest interest. They include the honor and author 
ity of God as ruler in the moral realm ; the most sacred 
rights and the highest welfare of moral beings ; the ut- 
most attainable restraint of sin and promotion of right- 
eousness. Divine justice must regard these ends. In 
their neglect it would cease to be justice. It must 
protect them through the means of penalty, except oh 
the ground of such provisory substitute as will render 
forgiveness consistent with that protection. Such a 
substitute is found only in the vicarious sacrifice of 
Christ. As fully answering for these ends, his suffer- 
ings are an atonement for sin, fulfilling, on forgiveness, 
the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in 
moral government. 



26 Reality of Atonement. 



CHAPTER H. 

REALITY OF ATONEMENT. 

T N this chapter we treat the atonement simply as a 
fact, not as a doctrine. The sense in which the 
vicarious sacrifice of Christ constitutes the objective 
ground of divine forgiveness is for future discussion. 

L 

Witnessing Facts. 
There are certain facts that all should receive as 
scriptural, however diversely they may be interpreted. 
We claim for them a decisive testimony to the reality 
of an atonement for sin in the mediation of Christ. 

1. A Message of Salvation. — The Gospel is pre-em- 
inently such a message to a sinful and lost world. Its 
very style as the Gospel — Td evayyeXtov — sets it forth 
as good tidings. It is " the glorious Gospel of the 
blessed God ;" ' " the Gospel of the grace of God ;" * 
" the Gospel of salvation." s A free overture of grace in 
forgiveness and salvation crowns the Gospel of Christ. 

2. The Salvation in Christ. — While the great fact of 
Revelation is the mission of Christ, the great purpose of 
this mission is the salvation of sinners. The Scriptures 
ever witness to this purpose, and specially reveal Christ 
as the Saviour. The Angel of the Annunciation gave 
charge respecting the coming Messiah : " And thou 

»1 Tim. 1:11. 'Acts 20:24. , Eph.l:13. 



Witnessing Facts. 27 

■halt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people 
from their sins." ' The announcement of the blessed 
Advent to the shepherds was in a like strain : " And the 
angel said unto them, Fear not : for, behold, I bring 
you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all 
people. For unto you is born this day in the city of 
David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." 8 Addi- 
tional texts could only emphasize these explicit utter- 
ances of the salvation in Christ. " For God sent not 
his Son into the world to condemn the world ; but that 
the world through him might be saved." 8 " This is, 
indeed, the Christ, the Saviour of the world." * " And 
we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the 
Son to be the Saviour of the world." 5 These texts, 
though but a small fraction of a great number, are suf- 
ficient for the verification of the fact that the salvation 
so freely offered in the Gospel is a salvation in Christ. 
3. Salvation in his Suffering. — This truth is declared 
by the very many texts which set forth the mission of 
Christ as the Saviour of sinners. They are so numer- 
ous that their full citation would fill many pages. We 
may give a few in part. " But he was wounded for 
our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities : 
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with 
his stripes we are healed." 8 This whole chapter is full 
of the same truth, and clearly anticipates the higher 
revelation of the New Testament. " Whom God hath 
set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, 
to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins." 7 

1 Matt 1 : 21. a Luke 2: 10, 11. ■ John 3 : 17. 
4 John 4: 42. 5 1 John 4: 14. a Isa. 53 : 6. ' Rom. 3 : 26. 



28 Reality of Atonement. 

" Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we 
shall be saved from wrath through him/' ' " For Christ 
also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, 
that he might bring us to God, being put to death in 
the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 9 "And the 
blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.'" 
" Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins 
in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests 
unto God and his Father; to him be glory and domin- 
ion for ever and ever. Amen." 4 These words, so ex- 
plicitly attributing our salvation to the vicarious sacri- 
fice of Christ, might well be heard as from the very 
border-land between the earthly and heavenly estates. 
Then like words, and equally explicit, come from be- 
yond the border, attributing the salvation of the saints 
in heaven to the same atoning blood. " These are they 
which came out of great tribulation, and have washed 
their robes, and made them white in the blood of the 
Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, 
and serve him day and night in his temple." 6 These 
texts sufficiently verify this third fact as a fact of Script- 
ure, that the salvation so freely offered in the Gospel 
of Christ is a salvation provided in his suffering and 

death. 

4. His redeeming Death Necessary.— The vicarious 
sacrifice of Christ was not a primary or absolute neces- 
sity, but only as the sufficient ground of forgiveness. 
And not only is salvation directly ascribed to his blood, 
but his redeeming death is declared to be necessary to 

>Rom. 5:9. »1 Pet 3: 18. »1 John 1:1 

* Rev. 1 : 5, 6. • Rev. 1 : 14, 16. 



Witnessing Facts. 29 

this salvation. "Thus it is written, and thus it be- 
hooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the 
third day: and that repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name among all nations, be- 
ginning at Jerusalem." 1 Thus it behooved Christ to 
suffer, not for the fulfillment of the prophetic Script- 
ures, but in order to the salvation which, long before 
his advent, they had foretold as the provision of his 
vicarious sacrifice. Only on the ground of his suffei ing 
and death could there be either the preaching of re- 
pentance, or the grace of repentance, or the remission 
of sins. This was the imperative behoof. " Neither is 
there salvation in any other: for there is none other 
name under heaven given among men, whereby we 
must be saved." 2 The emphasis of this text is in the 
fact that these things are affirmed of the crucified 
Christ. " For if righteousness come by the law, then 
Christ is dead in vain." 3 In the context St. Paul is as- 
serting his own realization of a spiritual life through faith 
in Christ, who loved him, and gave himself for him. 
This life in salvation he declares to be impossible by 
the law, and possible only through the sacrificial death 
of Christ. Were it otherwise, Christ has died in vain. 
The necessity for his redeeming death in order to for- 
giveness and salvation could not be given more ex- 
plicitly, nor with deeper emphasis. " For if there had 
been a law given which could have given life, verily 
righteousness should have been by the law." 4 Here is 
the same truth of necessity. Life is by the redeeming 
Christ, and has no other possible source. 

1 Luke 24 : 46, 47. a Acts 4:12. ■ Gal. 2 : 21. 4 Gal. 3 : 21 



30 Reality of Atonement. 

5. Only Explanation of His Suffering.— The sufferings 
of Christ were for no sin of his own. Nor were they 
officially necessary, except as an atonement for sin. 
He had power to avert them, and endured them only 
through love to a lost world, and in filial obedience to 
his Father's will. 1 They were not chosen for their 
own sake on the part of either, but only in the interest 
of human salvation. They were a profound sacrifice on 
the part of both. And while the Son went willingly 
down into their awful depths, his very nature shrank 
from them. Three times the prayer of his soul was 
poured out to his loving Father, " O, my Father, if it 
be possible, let this cup pass from me." 2 There must 
have been some profound necessity for his drinking it. 
Clearly that necessity lay in this— that only thereby 
could salvation be brought into the world. And these 
profound sufferings of the redeeming Son witness to 
the reality of an atonement for sin. 

6. Necessity of Faith to Salvation.— The facts already 
given and verified by the Scriptures are decisive of an 
atonement for sin in the sufferings and death of Christ. 
They go beyond its reality and conclude its necessity. 
It is also a significant fact, and one bearing on the same 
point, that faith in Christ, and as the redeeming Christ, 
is the true and necessary condition of forgiveness and 
salvation. The application is to those who have the 
Gospel. This condition cannot be required of those 
who have not the Gospel. We doubt not the possi- 
bility of their salvation : but their only salvation is in 
Christ; and for them God has his own method in Ids 
1 John 10:18 " Matt 26 : 39, 42, 44. 



Witnessing Facts. SI 

own wisdom and grace. Their case, however, has 
nothing to do with the requirement of faith on the 
part of all who have the Gospel. And the fact of 
this requirement will answer for the proof of an atone- 
ment in the sacrifice of Christ. 

Generally, faith in Christ, with the associated idea of 
his redeeming death, is set forth as the true and nec- 
essary condition of salvation. Proof -texts are numer- 
ous and familiar. We may instance the great com- 
mission : " And he said unto them, Go ye into all the 
world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He 
that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he 
that believeth not, shall be damned." 1 As Christ laid 
this solemn charge upon his ministers to preach the 
Gospel in all the world, and which should be so es- 
pecially the preaching of himself crucified, it was 
very proper and profoundly important that he should 
distinctly set forth the condition of the great salva- 
tion so proclaimed. This he did in the most explicit 
terms. Faith in Christ is the condition so clearly 
given. This is the imperative requirement. And the 
Lord emphasizes the fact by declaring the different 
consequences of believing and not believing. Were 
this the only proof-text, it would conclude the fact 
of faith in Christ as the true and necessary condition 
of forgiveness and salvation. 

We may add another in this general view. "And 

as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even 

so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever 

believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal 

1 Mark 16: 15, 16. 



32 Reality of Atonement. 

life." 1 As the Israelites, bitten by the fiery serpents 
and ready to perish, were recovered only in looking 
upon the brazen serpent which Moses lifted up in the 
midst of the camp; 5 so is our salvation conditioned on 
our faith in Christ lifted up upon the cross as a sacri- 
fice for sin. 

Yet more directly is this fact given. " Whom God 
hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of 
sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to 
declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he 
might be just, and the justifier of him which believetb 
in Jesus." 3 Here the forgiveness of sin is through 
the propitiatory blood of Christ as its ground, and on 
faith therein as its condition. Such is the economy of 
redemption, whereby the divine righteousness is vindi- 
cated in the justification of sinners. 

Faith could not be so required were not the blood of 
Christ a true and necessary atonement for sin. Were 
repentance a sufficient ground of forgiveness, it would 
still be necessary to believe certain religious truths for 
the sake of their practical force. Only thus could there 
be a true repentance. But such is not the faith on 
which we are justified. There is a clear distinction of 
offices in the two cases. The faith necessary to repent- 
ance is operative through the practical force of the 
religious truths which it apprehends; but the justifying 
faith apprehends the blood of Christ as a propitiation 
for sin, trusts directly therein, and receives forgiveness 
as the immediate gift of grace. No other view will in- 
'John 3: 14, 15. a Num. 21: 7-9. 'Bom. 3: 26, 26. 



Witnessing Facts. 33 

terpret the Scriptures, which most explicitly give us 
the truth of justification by faith in Christ. 1 The justi- 
fication is in the forgiveness of sin, and must be, as it 
is the justification of sinners. And the direct and nec- 
essary connection of justification with faith in the re- 
demption of Christ, together with the immediateness 
of the forgiveness itself, concludes this distinct office 
of justifying faith. Hence, to confound such a faith 
with another faith in Christ as salutary simply through 
the practical force of spiritual truths and motives so 
apprehended, is to jumble things egregiously. 

There is such a practical faith in Christ, and of the 
highest moral potency. It may precede or follow the 
justifying faith. It apprehends the great practical 
lessons embodied in the Gospel of Christ. Their ap- 
prehension in faith is the necessary condition of their 
practical force. The soul thus opens to their moral 
motives, and realizes their practical influence. This is 
the philosophy of a chief element of the practical power 
of faith. It gives the law of moral potency in all prac- 
tical appeals in view of the love of God and the sacri- 
fice of Christ in the redemptive mediation. 

Such is the only office of faith in the scheme of Mora 
influence. We fully accept the fact of a great practi 
cal lesson in the mediation of Christ; and our own doc 
trine combines the weightiest elements of its potency 
But we object to the accounting this moral lesson, how 
ever valuable, an element of the atonement proper- 
most of all, the very atonement itself. This is the 
error of the theory of Moral influence. It is all the 
'Rom. 3: 19-22; 4: 5; Gal. 2: 16; 3: 22-24. 



34 Reality of Atonement. 

same when the advocate is in the fellowship of ecclesi 
astic orthodoxy. Dr. Bushnell, in his first monograph 
on atonement, is an instance. 1 We have another in 
Frederick Denison Maurice: "Every deed of love to 
those tormented with plagues and sicknesses, every 
parable to the multitude, every discourse with his 
disciples, was letting his light shine before men, tJmt 
they, seeing his good works, might glorify his Fatlwr in 
heaven. That was the work which he came to do, and 
which he finished when he gave up the ghost." 2 Thus 
the sacrifice of Christ fulfills its atoning office through 
the practical force of a moral lesson. By the principles 
and references of the author, given with his own itali- 
cising, the sermon on the mount, the miracles, teach- 
ings, charities of Christ, go into his atonement for sin, 
in the same manner as his sacrifice upon the cross. It 
follows, that Christians, through the light of their good 
works, are atoning for sin by the same means, and the 
only means, whereby Christ himself atoned for it. 
Surely these facts are enough for the refutation of the 
scheme. 

But our special objection to this view here is, that it 
denies a distinct office of faith in the propitiatory work 
of Christ as the condition of forgiveness in justification. 
It consistently and necessarily does this. But there is 
such an office of faith, and one clearly distinguished 
from its office as a practical force in the religious life. 
And the distinct requirement of faith in the propitia- 
tory sacrifice of Christ, in order to forgiveness, is con- 

1 " The Vicarious Sacrifice." 

• "The Doctriue of Sacrifice," p. 223. 



Witnessing Facts. 35 

elusive of a true and necessary atonement for sin in his 
sufferings and death. 

7. Christ a Unique Saviour. — Christ is a person in 
history ; but his history is unique, and his character and 
work unique. Often designated the Son of man, he 
yet cannot be classed with men. No law of science or 
philosophy would warrant or even permit such a classi- 
fication. In the fashion of a man, he is yet above men. 
The facts of his life constitute a new history, distinct 
and different from all others. They reveal a personal 
consciousness alone in its kind. A manifest fact of this 
consciousness is the profound sense of a divine vocation, 
original and singular in the moral history of the world, 
and which he only can fulfill. The moral impression 
of his life upon the souls of men is peculiar to itself, 
and fitly responsive to the originality of his own char- 
acter and work. Amid men and angels, he stands apart 
in his own personality and mission. 

His religion is unique. It is such because he, as a 
religious founder, is original and singular. Here, also, 
he cannot be classed with others in any exact scientific 
sense. Every religion is, more or less, what its founder 
is. His thoughts and feelings are wrought into it. It 
takes its molding from the cast of his mind. Its aims 
and forces are the outgoing of his own subjective life. 
Most eminently has Christ wrought his own soul and 
life into his own religion. In the highest sense, its 
aims and forces are the outgoing of his own mind: so 
much so, that to come into the same mind with him is 
the highest realization of the Christian life. What he 
is his religion is. But his distinctive peculiarity, as the 



S6 Reality op Atonement. 

founder of a religion, is not so much in the highei 
measure of his own life wrought into it, as in the qual- 
ity of that life. Hence his religion differs so much 
from all others, because he differs so much from all 
other religious founders. 

His religion is unique as one of salvation. And it 
is not only the fact of a salvation, but especially the 
distinctive character of it, that constitutes the pecul- 
iarity. It is a salvation in forgiveness of sin, and in 
moral regeneration. So it is realized in the gracious 
experience of many souls. And this salvation comes 
not as the fruit of culture, nor in reward of personal 
merit, nor as the purchase of penance or treasure. A 
religion grounded in such profound truths respecting 
God and man, and especially respecting man's moral 
state and spiritual destiny and needs, never could offer 
such a salvation on such conditions. The means have 
no sufficiency for the end. This salvation is provided 
for and possible only in the grace and spiritual agen- 
cies of a redemptive economy. Here sin is taken away, 
and the soul renewed. There is a new life in Christ. 
In this life is salvation — such a salvation as no other 
religion provides. 

Most of all, is Christ a unique Saviour in that he 
saves u£ by the sacrifice of himself. The salvation is 
not in his divinity, nor in his humanity, nor in his 
unique personality as the God-man, nor in the lessons 
of religion which he taught, nor in the perfect life 
which he lived and gave to the world as an example, 
nor in the love wherewith he loved us, nor in all the 
moral force of life, and lesson, and love combined, but 



Witnessing Facts. 37 

in his cross — in the blood of his cross as an atonement 
for sin. The voice of revelation is one voice, ever 
distinct, unvarying, and emphatic, in the utterance of 
this truth. This utterance comes forth of all the facts 
and words which reveal the distinctively saving work 
of Christ. They need no citation here. A few have 
already been given. Others will appear in their proper 
place. For the present, the position need only be 
stated and emphasized : Christ is a Saviour through 
an atonement in his blood as the ground of forgiveness. 
He is such a Saviour singularly, uniquely. The fact 
is too clear and certain for denial. No one familiar 
with the Scriptures, and frank in his spiritual mood, 
can question it. 

This is a cardinal fact, and one not to be overlooked 
in the interpretation of the redeeming work of Christ. 
No other has ever claimed to put his own life and 
blood into the saving sufficiency and efficiency of his 
religion. No other is, or can be, such a Saviour as 
Christ. If a Saviour only through a moral influence, 
good men are saviours as truly as he, and in the same 
mode, differing only in the measure of their influence. 
Can such a theory interpret the Scriptures, or find a 
response in the highest, best form of the Christian 
consciousness ? Who is there in all the Christian ages 
whom we can regard as a saviour in the same sense as 
Christ, and differing only in the measure of his saving 
influence ? As revealed in the Scriptures, and appre- 
hended in the living faith of the Church, and realized 
in the truest Christian experience, Christ is the only 
Saviour. And he is a Saviour only through an atone- 



38 Reality of Atonement. 

ment in his blood. This is his highest distinction as a 
Saviour, and one that places him apart from all others 
Any scheme of Christianity contrary to this view is 
false to the Scriptures, false to the soteriology of the 
Gospel, false to the living religious faith and conscious- 
ness of the Christian centuries. And unless we can 
surrender all essentially distinctive character in the 
saving work of Christ, and so do violence to all de- 
cisive facts in the case, we must maintain a true atone- 
ment in his death as the only and necessary ground 
of forgiveness and salvation. 

n. 

Witnessing Terms. 

Advocates of an objective atonement in Christ, while 
differing on the doctrine, are quite agreed on the 
Scripture proofs of the fact. Their interpretations are 
much the same, except where they go beyond the real- 
ity of an atonement and press their respective doctrinal 
views into the exposition. It is in the order of a 
better method to keep, as far as practicable, to one 
question at a time. This we shall endeavor to do in 
treating the leading terms for the fact of atonement. 
The doctrine which they contain will still be held for 
future discussion. 

A full treatment of these terms for the purpose iv 
hand would require a volume. The discussion has 
often been elaborately gone over, and very conclu- 
sively for the fact of an atonement. There is, there- 
fore, the less occasion to repeat it. Any one inter- 
ested in the question will readily find its full and 



Witnessing Terms. 39 

able treatment in the standard works on systematic 
theology, and in treatises exclusively on the atone- 
ment. 

This discussion has no prescriptive method. Some 
deal with individual texts; some follow the order of 
the sacred writers, treating successively what each one 
gives on the question; others proceed in an order of 
the more specific terms of atonement, grouping under 
these severally the facts and texts which properly be- 
long to them. We shall follow this method as the 
best, and as specially suited to the brief discussion 
which we propose. 

1. Atonement — This term is of frequent use in the 
Old Testament, but occurs only once in the New. The 
original, "123, signifies to cover ; then to cover sin, to 
forgive sin, to discharge from punishment: in its noun 
form, an expiation, a propitiation, a redemption. 1 

In its primary meaning the term has no proper sense 
of atonement. 2 It has such a sense in its appropriated 
use. Its meaning, as in the history of many other 
terms, is broadened in its use. A rigid adherence in 
such a case to the primary sense is false to the deeper 
ideas conveyed. 

Atonement, as expressed by this term, was often for 
the removal of ceremonial impurities, or in order to a 
proper qualification for sacred services. It has this 
sense in application to both things and persons. 8 We 

1 Gesenius, "Hebrew and English Lexicon;" Magee, "Atone- 
ment and Sacrifice," dissertation xxxvi ; Dr. John Pye Smith, " Sacri- 
fice and Priesthood," pp. 136, 301-304; Rev. Alford Cave, "The 
Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice," pp. 482^86. 

*Gen. 6:14. 'Lev. 16: 11, 16, 18, 33. 



40 Reality of Atonement. 

have not yet, however, the full sense, but a foreshadow- 
ing of its deeper meaning. 

In the more strictly moral and legal relations cf the 
term, we may admit a lower and a higher sense, and 
without any concession to those who, on the ground of 
the former, would exclude the latter. In many in- 
stances atonement was made for what are designated 
as sins of ignorance. 1 It may not be rightfully assumed 
that these sins were without amenability in justice and 
law. The contrary is apparent. "The ignorance in- 
tended cannot have been of a nature absolute and in- 
vincible, but such as the clear promulgation of their 
law, and their strict obligation to study it day and 
night, rendered them accountable for, and which was 
consequently in a certain degree culpable." a Nor does 
it follow that there is no true sense of atonement be- 
cause such sins have not the deepest criminality. 

But were such instances without culpability, and 
therefore without evidence of an atonement, the fact 
would not affect the instances of atonement for sins of 
the deepest responsibility. There are such instances. 8 
And to put the lower sense upon examples of the 
higher ; most of all, to deny the higher because there 
is a lower, is without law in Scripture exegesis. 

In the higher moral and legal relations of atone 
ment there are the facts of sin and judicial condem- 
nation. The offender is answerable in penalty Then 
there is a vicarious sacrifice, and the forgiveness of 

'Lev. 4: 13-26; 5: 17-19; Num. 15: 24-28. 

'Magee, "Atonement and Sacrifice," dissertation xxxviL 

'Lev. 6: 2-7. 



Witnessing Terms. 41 

the sinner. There is an atonement for sin. The fact 
is clear in the Scripture texts given by reference, 
Others, equally conclusive, will be given in another 
connection. 

There are in the use of the term instances of atonement 
without any sacrifice. Moses, by an intercessory prayer, 
made an atonement for Israel after the sin of idolatry 
in worshiping the golden calf. 1 Aaron, with his censer, 
atoned for the congregation after the rebellion of Ko- 
ran. 9 Phinehas, by his religious zeal, made an atone- 
ment for the people, and turned away from them the 
divine wrath. 8 

In view of such facts, it is urged that there is no 
direct and necessary connection between sacrifices of 
atonement and the divine forgiveness, and hence, that 
there is no proof in the sacrificial system of an atone- 
ment for sin in the sacrifice of Christ. This is incon- 
sequent. The sacrifices of the law were an atonement 
only typically, not intrinsically. 4 While, therefore, 
certain kinds might have special fitness for this service, 
yet mere typical fitness has nothing essential. Hence 
these sacrifices of atonement might be varied or even 
omitted, while the atonement in the sacrifice of Christ, 
as intrinsically such, is both real and necessary. The 
proof of atonement from the sacrificial system will be 
treated in connection with the priesthood and sacrifice 
of Christ. 

We get the proof of an atonement in Christ, not so 
much from the direct application of the original term 

1 Exod. 32 : 30-32. * Num. 16 : 46-48. 

• Num. 25 : 11-13. * Heb. 10 : 1-11. 



42 Reality of Atonement. 

to him as from certain significant types fulfilled in him, 
and especially from the application of equivalent terms 
in the Greek of the New Testament to his redemptive 
mediation. 

We may give one instance in which the original term 
is applied to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. 1 The pas- 
sage referred to is clearly Messianic. It determines by 
historic connections the time of Christ's advent. Then 
it gives certain ends to be accomplished: "to make an 
end of sins " — to terminate the typical sacrifices of the 
law by the one sufficient sacrifice of himself; "and to 
make reconciliation — i3dS^ — for iniquity." The pas- 
sage clearly shows that Christ makes an atonement for 
sin by the sacrifice of himself. And this sense is em- 
phasized in the further fact, that " Messiah shall be cut 
off, but not for himself," especially as viewed in the 
light of intimately related facts and utterances of the 
Gospel. 

As previously noted, the term atonement occurs but 
once in the English version of the New Testament, and 
then as the rendering of KaraXXayrj, usually rendered 
reconciliation.' The text, therefore, properly belongs 
to this term. 

2. Reconciliation. — Reconciliation, and to reconcile — 
KaraXkayri, KaraXXdaaeiv — are terms frequently applied 
to the redemptive work of Christ, and with the clear 
sense of a real atonement. 

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled 
to God by the death of his Son, much more, being re- 
conciled, we shall be saved by his life." 9 This is the 
1 Dan. 9 : 24-26. * Rom. 6:11. * Rom. 6: 10. 



Witnessing Terms. 43 

reconciliation of enemies, and, therefore, ol persons un- 
der God's displeasure and judicial condemnation. The 
reconciliation is by the death of his Son. The assurance 
of salvation lies in the fact of such a reconciliation of 
enemies. The divine acceptance in favor comes after 
this reconciliation as its provisory ground. The death 
of Christ renders forgiveness consistent with the re- 
quirements of justice in moral administration. Such a 
reconciliation is the reality of atonement. With such a 
fact St. Paul might well add: " And not only so, but 
we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
whom we have now received — rrjv KaraXXayrjv — the re- 
conciliation." 1 Here is the joy of an actual reconcilia- 
tion through the death of Christ. 

" And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us 
to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the 
ministry of reconciliation," etc. 2 The facts of this text 
give the sense of a real atonement. The reconciliation 
is in Christ. It includes a non-imputation of sin; that 
is, we are no longer held in absolute condemnation, but 
have the gracious privilege of the divine forgiveness and 
friendship. Hence there is committed to us the minis- 
try of reconciliation, with its gracious overtures and 
entreaties. And the manner in which God reconciles 
us to himself in Christ is deeply emphasized: " For he 
hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that 
we might be made the righteousness of God in him." J 
Any fair exposition of this text must find in it the fact 
of an atonement. 8 

1 Rom. 5:11. * 2 Cor. 6 : 18-21. 

■ See also Eph. 2:16; Col. 1 : 20-22 ; Heb. 2 : It. 



44 Reality of Atonement. 

It is urged in objection, that in these texts we are said 
to be reconciled to God, not God to us. The fact is 
admitted, while the validity of the objection is denied. 
It falsely assumes that the only bar to God's friend- 
ship with his rebellious subjects is in their hostility to 
him; and hence illogically concludes that the reconcil- 
iation in Christ is an atonement, not as a rectoral 
ground of the divine forgiveness, but simply as a moral 
influence leading them to repentance and loyalty. This 
is contradicted by many principles and facts previously 
discussed. It is contrary to those texts according to 
which God, by the reconciliation in Christ, puts himself 
into a relation of mercy toward us, and then, on the 
ground of this reconciliation, urges and entreats us in 
penitence and faith to accept his offered forgiveness and 
love. Thus upon the ground of a provisory divine rec- 
onciliation there will follow an actual reconciliation 
and a mutual friendship. 

Further, this objection falsely assumes that reconcil- 
iation is simply the cessation of hostility in the party 
said to be reconciled. It properly means, and often can 
only mean, that he is reconciled in the sense of finding 
the forgiveness and friendship of the party -to whom 
he is reconciled. Of this there are familiar instances in 
Scripture. 1 As applied to rebellious subjects, the term 
has its first relation to the ruler. "To be reconciled, 
when spoken of subjects who have been in rebellion 
against their sovereign, is to be brought into a state in 
which pardon is offered to them, and they have it in 
their power to render themselves capable of that par- 
J l Sam. 23:4; Matt. 6:23, 24 



Witnessing Teems. 45 

don; namely, by laying down their enmity. . . . 
Wherefore, the reconciliation received through Christ 
is God's placing all mankind, ever since the fall, under 
the gracious new covenant procured for them through 
the obedience of Christ; in which the pardon of sin is 
offered to them, together with eternal life, on their ful- 
filling its gracious requisitions." ' This is an accurate 
statement of the reconciliation in Christ, and gives us 
the fact of an atonement therein. 

3. Propitiation. — To be propitious is to be disposed 
to forgiveness and favor. To propitiate is to render 
an aggrieved or offended party clement and forgiving. 
A propitiation is that whereby the favorable change is 
wrought. Hence the mediation or blood of Christ as a 
propitiation for our sins, and the ground of forgive- 
ness, is an atonement. It is an atonement because a 
propitiation for sin in its relation to the clemency and 
forgiveness of the divine Ruler. 

There are two points to be specially noticed : the 
nature of the divine propitiousness toward sinners; and 
the relation of the redemptive mediation of Christ to 
that propitiousness. 

God is propitious to sinners in a disposition toward 
forgiveness. This is in the definition of the term. The 
same sense is given in Scripture, without any direct 
reference to a propitiatory sacrifice. The fact will 
render the clearer the propitiatory office of the blood 
of Christ. We will cite a few texts in illustration; but 
for a clearer view of the sense stated, the original 
terms — appropriate forms of ^B3, nSo, iXaaKo\iai — should 

- T - T 

1 Macknight: " On tlie Epistles," Rom. 5 : 10. 



46 Reality of Atonement. 

be consulted, as the term propitioue, or to bo pro- 
pitious, is not given in our translation. "For thy 
name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity ; for it is 
great." ' " But he, being full of compassion, forgave 
their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a 
time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all 
his wrath." * " O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive." 3 " God 
be merciful to me a sinner." 4 " For I will be merciful 
to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their in- 
iquities will I remember no more." 5 

These texts, selected from many similar ones, suffice 
for the position that God is propitious in a disposi- 
tion toward forgiveness, and in the fact of forgiveness 
as the exercise of such clemency. Here are sins, and 
the divine displeasure against them. Here are sin- 
ners with a deep sense of sin, and of the divine con- 
demnation. Here are their earnest prayers to God, 
that he would be propitious and forgive. And he for- 
gives them, turns away his wrath and accepts them in 
favor, as he is propitious to them. 

These facts determine the meaning of a propitiation. 
It is that which renders an aggrieved or offended party 
clement and forgiving; that which is the reason or 
ground of forgiveness. Such a propitiation is an 
atonement. 

Christ is a propitiation for sin. He is such in his 
sacrificial death, and in relation to the divine clemency 
and forgiveness. " Whom God hath set forth to be a 
propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his 

'Pea 25: 11. 'Psa. 78: 33. *Dan. 9: 19. 

4 Luke 18: 13. •Heb. 8: 12. 



Witnessing Terms. 47 

righteousness for the remission of sins that are past."' 
Here are all the facts of a true propitiation: the pre- 
supposed sins as an offense against God, and his dis- 
pleasure against them; the blood of Christ as a pro- 
pitiation for sins; the divine clemency and forgiveness 
through this propitiation. The blood of Christ fulfills 
its propitiatory office with God. There is, therefore, 
an atonement in his blood. Other Scripture texts give 
the same truth. " And he is the propitiation for our 
sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
whole world." "Herein is love, not that we loved 
God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the 
propitiation for our sins." 2 Such a propitiation for sin 
is the reality of an atonement in Christ. 

4. Redemption. — Under this term might be classed 
many texts which, with the utmost certainty, give us 
the fact of an atonement. 

Redemption has a clear and well defined sense. To 
redeem is to purchase back, to ransom, to liberate from 
slavery, captivity, or death, by the payment of a price. 
This gives the sense of redemption or to redeem — 
kvTpoh) — in both its classic and Scripture use. 8 

Under the Mosaic law, alienated lands might be re- 
covered by the payment of a ransom or price. This 
would be a redemption. Such alienated property, if 
not previously ransomed, reverted without price at the 
jubilee; but this reversion was not a redemption, be- 
cause without any ransom-price. 4 A poor Israelite 

1 Rom. 3: 25. 3 1 John 2: 2; 4: 10. 

8 Dr. John Pye Smith: "Sacrifice and Priesthood," pp. 204-201; 
Dr. Hill : " Lectures in Divinity," pp. 414, 4T5. 4 Lev. 25 : 23-28. 



4:8 Reality of Atonement. 

might redeem himself from slavery by the payment of 
a sum reckoned according to the time remaining for 
which he had sold himself. This would be his redemp- 
tion. But the freedom which came with the jubilee 
was not a redemption, because it came without any 
price. 1 These facts confirm the sense of redemption as 
previously given. Further, in the case of one who has 
forfeited his life : " If there be laid on him a sum of 
money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life 
whatever is laid upon him." a This is an instance of 
redemption. The same meaning lies in the fact, that 
for the life of a murderer no ransom was permitted. 3 

Occasional applications of the term simply in the 
sense of a deliverance, are not contrary to the truer 
and deeper meaning. There is a deliverance as the 
result of a redemption. The ransom is paid in or- 
der to the deliverance. And it is a proper usage to 
apply the name of a thing to its effect, or to what con- 
stitutes only a part of its meaning. This use is entirely 
consistent with the deeper sense of redemption, while 
the deeper sense cannot be reduced to that of a mere 
deliverance. This is true of the instances previously 
given, and will be found true of the redemption in 
Christ. 

We shall here select but a few of the many texts 
whioh apply the terms of redemption to the saving work 
of Christ. 

" The Son of man came ... to give his life a ransom 
for many." " Who gave himself a ransom for all." * The 

1 Lev. 25 : 47-64. ' Exod. 21 : 30. 

3 Num. 35 : 31. * Matt 20 : 28 ; 1 Tim. 2 : & 



Witnessing Teems. 49 

original terms — Xvrgov, avriXvrgov- — are the very terms 
which signify the ransom or price given for the libera- 
tion of a captive, the recovery of any thing forfeited, 
or the satisfaction of penal obligation. So, for our de- 
liverance from sin and death, and for the recovery of 
our forfeited spiritual life, Christ gives his life — himself 
— as the ransom. Redemption in its deeper sense could 
not have a clearer expression. Truly are we "bought 
with a price ; " " Not redeemed with corruptible things, 
as silver and gold, . . . but with the precious blood of 
Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without 
spot." 1 As in other cases silver and gold constituted 
the ransom, so the blood of Christ is the price of our 
redemption from sin. 

"Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem 
us from all iniquity;" "And for this cause he is the 
mediator of the new testament, that by means of 
death, for the redemption of the transgressions that 
were under the first testament, they which are called 
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."* 
Here are facts of redemption which give us a real 
atonement. We are sinners, with the penal liabilities 
of sin; and Christ gives his own life as the price of 
our ransom. 

" Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is 
every one that hangeth on a tree;" "But when the 
fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, 
made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them 
that were under the law, that we might receive the 

1 1 Cor. 6: 20; 1 Pet 1: 18, 19. a Titus 2: 14; Heb. 9: 15 



50 Reality of Atonement. 

adoption of sous." ' In the second text we have a dif- 
ferent original word- -kZayogafa — but of like meaning. 
The subjects of the redemption are under the law, and 
under the curse of the law — the former state implying 
all that the latter expresses. Whether "the law" be 
the law of nature or the Mosaic, the facts of redemp- 
tion are the same. Under both men are sinners, and 
by neither is there salvation. The redemption is from 
the penalty of sin — from the curse of the law. The 
same sense is determined by the fact, that the redemp- 
tion is to the end, " that we might receive the adoption 
of sons." The death of Christ upon the cross is the 
redemption. 

"Being justified freely by his grace through the re- 
demption that is in Christ Jesus." " In whom we have 
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, 
according to the riches of his grace." 2 Here we have 
the same facts of redemption. We arc sinners and un- 
der divine condemnation. The redemption through 
Christ, and in his blood, is in order to our justification, 
or the forgiveness of our sins. 

Such are the facts of redemption by Jesus Christ. 
And with the sin and condemnation of men as its sub- 
jects, with the forgiveness and salvation which it pro- 
vides, with the blood of Christ as the ransom whereby 
the gracious change is wrought, it is unreasonable to 
deny the fact of an atonement in his redeeming death. 
"Every one feels the effect of introducing the nouns 
\v7p0v or avTiXvrpov, in connection with the verb Avw, 
when applied to the case of a discharged debtor or re- 
1 GaL 3: 13; 4: 4, 6. ■ Rom. 3: 24; Eph. 1: 1 



Witnessing Tebms. 51 

leased captive, as making it perfectly clear that his re- 
demption is not gratuitous, but that some consideration 
is given for the securing it. Nor is the significancy of 
these nouns in the least diminished when it is from 
penal consequences of a judicial nature that a person is 
released. The hvrpov, indeed, in that case, is not a 
price from which the lawgiver is to receive any per- 
sonal advantage. It is the satisfaction to public law 
and justice upon which he consents to remit the sen- 
tence. But still, the mention of it, in this case as well 
as in others, is absolutely inconsistent with a gratuitous 
remission." 1 This statement holds true, with all the 
force of its facts, in application, as intended, to the 
redemption in Christ. The deeper ideas of redemption 
were wrought into the minds of the writers of the New 
Testament by both their Hebraic and Hellenic educa- 
tion. Nor may we think that they used its terms out 
of their proper meaning in applying them to the saving 
work of Christ. Such a redemption is the reality of 
atonement. 

Redemption holds a prominent place in the nomen- 
clature of atonement; indeed, is often used for the des- 
ignative term instead of atonement itself. It may be 
pressed into the service of an erroneous doctrine. The 
result is, a commercial atonement. But this is carrying 
the analogy in the case to an unwarranted extreme. Re- 
demption is modified by the sphere in which it is made. 
The ransom price of a captive, or slave, goes to the 

1 Dr. George Hill : " Lectures in Divinity," vol. ii, p. 483. The 
passage varies from the same one in the American edition, anc is 
given as quoted by Professor Crawford. 



52 Reality of Atonement. 

personal benefit of the party making the surrender; it 
is his compensation. The transaction is one of barter. 
When a penalty of death was commuted for a sum of 
money, the ransom was penal and of rectoral service, 
but also of pecuniary value with the government. In the 
divine government there can be no such element of re- 
demption. The redemption does not thereby lose the 
sense of an atonement, but should, therefore, be guarded 
against an erroneous doctrine. The gist of analogy is in 
the fact of a compensatory ransom. This is consistent 
with a wide distinction in the nature of the compensa- 
tion. There is a wide distinction in fact: in the one 
case a personal, pecuniary compensation; in the other, 
a compensation in rectoral value. In the one case 
money redeems a captive, or slave, as a commercial 
equivalent; in the other, the blood of Christ redeems a 
soul as the rectoral equivalent of penalty. The ransom 
price is as vitally related to the result in the latter case 
as in the former. This gives us the reality of an atone- 
ment in the redemption of Christ, and will give us a 
doctrine without any commercial element. 

5. Substitution. — Substitution is not formally a 
Scripture term, but well expresses the sense of numer- 
ous texts in their application to the saving work of 
Christ. Like the term " redemption," it may be pressed 
into the service of an erroneous doctrine. This, how 
ever, can be done only by a wrong interpretation of 
the substitution. But we are still only on the fact of 
an atonement, and, for the proof of this, here require 
nothing more than the substitution of Christ in suffer- 
ing as the ground of forgiveness. 



Witnessing Tbbms. 53 

The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is clearly Messianic, 
aDd as clearly gives the fact of substitutional atonement. 
We shall attempt no elaborate or critical exposition. 
This has often been done, and successfully for the sense 
of a real atonement. 1 We cite the leading utterances: 
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was 
bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of oar 
peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are 
healed. . . . The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of 
us all. . . . He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter. . . . 
For the transgression of my people was he stricken. 
. . . Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put 
him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering 
for sin. . . . And he bare the sin of many, and made 
intercession for the transgressors." 2 These words are 
decisive of a substitutional atonement in the sufferings 
of Christ. 

"For when we were yet without strength, in due 
time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for 
a righteous man will one die : yet peradventure for 
a good man some would even dare to die. But God 
commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were 
yet sinners, Christ died for us." 3 Surely here is atone- 
ment in substitution. Those for whom Christ died 
are noted as ungodly, sinners, enemies. Hence they 
are in a state of condemnation. In the death of Christ 
for them is the ground of their justification, which is 

1 Alexander, Lowth, Delitzsch, severally on Isaiah, and a thorough 
treatment of the entire chapter by Rev. M. S. Terry, D.D., in the 
"Methodist Quarterly Review" for January, 1880. 

a Isa. 53 : 6-12. * Rom. 5 : G-8. 



64 Reality of Atonement. 

impossible by the deeds of the law. These facts give 
us atonement by substitution. This sense is confirmed 
by the suppositive case of one dying for another. It 
is a supposition of the substitution of one life for an- 
other, the rescue of one by the vicarious sacrifice of 
another. So Christ died for us as sinners, and in order 
to our forgiveness and salvation. It is a substitution 
in law ; not penal, but rectoral, so that law might ful- 
fill its office in the interest of moral government. This 
is vicarious atonement. 

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on 
the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto 
righteousness : by whose stripes ye were healed." ' 
Here is a clear reference to the fifty-third chapter of 
Isaiah, and also the same sense of atonement by sub- 
stitution. 

" For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just 
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." a Our 
sins separate us from God, and bring us under his con- 
demnation. There can be reconciliation and fellowship 
only through forgiveness. Christ provides for this by 
suffering for our sins in our stead — the just for the 
unjust. This is the reality of atonement by substitu- 
tion in suffering. 

m. 

Priesthood and Sacrifice. 

1. The Priesthood of Christ. — His priesthood has its 

prophetic utterance: "The Lord hath sworn, and will 

not repent, Thou art a priest forever aftei the order 

of Melchizedek." 8 The fullest unfolding of his priest- 

1 1 Pet 2: 24. ■ 1 Pet. 3: 18. » Psa 110: 4. 



Peiesthood and Saceipice. 55 

hood, with its sacrificial and intercessory offices, is in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. " Wherefore in all things 
it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that 
he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things 
pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of 
the people." " Seeing then that we have a great high- 
priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of 
God, let us hold fast our profession." "Now of the 
things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have 
such a high-priest, who is set on the right hand of the 
throne of the Majesty in the heavens." l These texts 
will suffice for what is really placed beyond question. 

2. His Sacrificial Office. — As it was an office of the 
priesthood, under the law, to offer sacrifices in atone- 
ment for sin, so Christ as our high-priest must offer a 
sacrifice for sin. This is not a mere inference, but the 
word of Scripture: " For every high-priest is ordained 
to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity 
that this man have somewhat also to offer." 9 

3. Himself a Sacrifice for Sin. — Nor are we left in 
any doubt respecting His sacrifice. He offers up Him- 
self. The fact is so often stated, and in such terms, as 
to give it the prof oundest significance. " Christ also hath 
loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and 
a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor." 8 " Who 
needeth not daily, as those high-priests, to offer up 
sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's, 
for this he did once, when he offered up himself." 4 
" How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through 
the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, 
>Heb, 2: 11; 4: 14; 8: 1. 'Heb. 8: 3. 'Eph. 5: 2. 4 Heb.7: 21. 



56 Reality of Atxxscment. 

purge your conscience from dead works to serve the 
living God ? " " Nor yet that he should offer himself 
often, as the high-priest entereth into the holy place 
every year with the blood of others; for then must he 
often have suffered since the foundation of the world: 
but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared 
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." 1 

No critical exegesis is required to find in these texts 
the fact of an atonement in the mediation of Christ. It 
lies upon their face, and enters into their deepest life. 
He is a sacrifice, self -offered, in atonement for sin; a 
sacrifice offered to God in such atonement, that we 
might be forgiven and saved. The sufiiciency of this 
one sacrifice, asserted with such emphasis, affirms the 
fact of an atonement. 

4. Typical Sacrifices.— In the statements respecting 
the sacrifice of Christ there are clear references to the 
ancient sacrifices; and its interpretation in the light of 
these references gives us the same fact of an atonement. 
But we shall not discuss this system; and a brief refer- 
ence will answer for our purpose. 

The great annual atonement has special prominence. 
Its many rites, divinely prescribed with exactness of 
detail, were sacredly observed. Its leading facts were 
few and simple, but of profound significance. The 
high-priest sacrificed a bullock in atonement for him- 
self and family, and, entering with its blood into the 
holy of holies, sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat. Thus 
he found access into the divine presence. Then he se- 
lected two goats for an atonement for the people. One 
1 Heb. 9 : 14, 25 ; see also chap, x, 5-12. 



Priesthood and Sacrifice. 57 

he sacrificed, and entering with its blood into the most 
holy place, sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat before the 
Lord. Then with his hands upon the head of the other, 
he confessed over it the sins of the people, and sent it 
sway into the wilderness, thus signifying the bearing 
away of their sins. 1 Thus the high-priest made aii 
atonement for sin. 2 

The whole idea of atonement may here be denied on 
an assumption that the means have no adequacy to the 
end; that it is not in the nature of such a ceremony or 
such a sacrifice to constitute a ground of forgiveness. 
It is conceded that there is therein no intrinsic atone- 
ment. This, indeed, is the Scripture view. 8 But the 
idea of atonement is not, therefore, wanting. The 
divine reconciliation is real, the forgiveness of sin act- 
ual, but on the ground of the vicarious sacrifice of 
Christ — "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the 
world." 4 His atonement was not yet formally made, 
but already existed as a provision of the redemptive 
economy, and efficacious for salvation. And the idea 
of atonement is as real in the typical sacrifice . as in 
that which is intrinsically sufficient. Otherwise, the 
Levitical atonement has no typical office, and hence is 
utterly inexplicable. 

We have thus the idea of atonement in the Levitical 
sacrifices, and the fact of a real atonement in the sacri- 
fice of Christ. The former were substitutes for men in 
atonement for sin — typically, not efficaciously; while 
the latter, represented by them, and the ground of their 

1 Lev. 16: 6-22. a Dr. John Pye Smith on Sacrifice, pp. 246, 247. 
» Heb. 10 : 1-11. 4 Rev. 13 : 8. 



68 Reality of Atonement. 

acceptance, is intrinsically the atonement. As divinely 
appointed in their sacrificial office, and typical therein 
of the priestly sacrifice of Christ, they give decisive 
testimony to the fact of an atonement in his death. 

That the Levitical sacrifices of atonement, particu- 
larly in the great annual atonement, were typical of tLe 
atoning sacrifice of Christ, is clearly given in the Script- 
ures. 1 And combining type and antitype, with their 
characteristic facts, in one view, the proof of a real 
atonement is conclusive. Respecting the former, " Shall 
we content ourselves with merely saying that this was 
a symbol; but the question remains, of what was it a 
symbol ? To determine that, let the several parts of the 
symbolic action be enumerated. Here is confession of 
sin — confession before God, at the door of his taber- 
nacle — the substitution of a victim — the figurative 
transfer of sins to that victim— the shedding of blood, 
which God appointed to make atonement for the soul 
— the carrying the blood into the holiest place, the 
very permission of which clearly marked the divine ac- 
ceptance — the bearing away of iniquity — and the actual 
reconciliation of the people to God. If, then, this is 
symbolical, it has nothing correspondent to it; it never 
had or can have any thing correspondent to it but the 
sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and the communication 
of the benefits of his passion in the forgiveness of sins 
to those that believe in him, and their reconciliation 
with God." ■ 

5. Priestly Intercession in Heaven. — The intercession 

1 Heb. 9:8-12; 10:1. 

' Watson : " Theological Institutes," vol. ii, p. 167. 



Priesthood and Sacrifice. 59 

of Christ in a priestly office fulfilled in heaven, is a fact 
clearly given in the Scriptures: "Who is he that con- 
demneth ? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is 
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who 
also maketh intercession for us." 1 "Neither by the 
blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he en- 
tered in once into the holy place, having obtained eter- 
nal redemption for us." " For Christ is not entered into 
the holy places made with hands, which are the figures 
of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the 
presence of God for us." a 

Now mere intercession does not prove atonement; but 
such intercession does. It is in the order of the priestly 
office of Christ. This is clear from the texts cited, es- 
pecially with their connections. It follows the atoning 
sacrifice of himself, and with clear reference to the 
service of the Levitical atonement. As the high-priest 
entered with the blood of the sacrifice into the most 
holy place, and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat, the 
very place of the divine presence and propitiation ; so 
Christ entered with his own blood — not literally with 
it, but with its atoning virtue and the tokens of his sac- 
rifice — into heaven itself, into the very presence of God, 
in the office of intercession. Such an intercession, the 
very pleas of which are in his vicarious sacrifice and 
blood, affirms the reality of atonement. 

1 Bom. 8: 34. ■ Heb. 9: 12, 24 



60 Necessity for Atonement. 



CHAPTER III. 

NECESSITY FOR ATONEMENT. 

1. Limitation of the Question. — An inquiry into the 
necessity for an atonement might easily lead us into a 
very wide discussion. In its logical relations it is con- 
cerned with many leading topics of the question. There 
is specially a most intimate logical connection between 
the two questions of necessity and theory. It may be 
well to illustrate the fact. This may easily be done by 
reference to a few theories. 

With a scheme of Moral influence all intrinsic neces- 
sity for an atonement is consistently denied. Sinners 
may be saved on their own repentance. Forgiveness is 
just as free without Christ as with him. The atone- 
ment is merely a provision of moral influence in aid of 
the required repentance. 

The Mystical theory — a redemption in the mode of a 
spiritually sanitary union of Christ with humanity, 
either as a nature, or in its individuated personalities. 
or in its corporate organization as the Church— grounds 
the necessity for an atonement, accordingly, in some 
subjective imperfection of man rather than in his eth 
ical state. 

The theory of Satisfaction, in its distinctive Calvinian 
form, must base this necessity in the divine justice as 
absolutely requiring perfect obedience, or, on its failure 
and the occurrence of sin, an equivalent vicarious right- 






A Truth of Scripture. 61 

eousness and punishment as the necessary justification 
and only salvation. 

In the Governmental theory, the scientifically consist- 
ent necessity arises in the interest of moral government, 
and as an imperative requirement of some provision 
which may fulfill the rectoral office of penalty in the 
case of forgiveness. 

In view of such an intimate connection between ne- 
cessity and theory as concerned in the atonement, the 
whole question of necessity might be treated in con- 
nection with that of theories. Yet its separate discus- 
sion, at least so far as it is concerned in the doctrine 
which we shall maintain, will be in the order of a better 
method. So far as required in other theories it will be 
treated in connection with them. 

2. The Necessity a Truth of Scripture. — In our wit- 
nessing facts we have given Scripture proofs of a ne- 
cessity for atonement in the sufferings of Christ. 1 This 
necessity, as divinely revealed, is asserted in the most 
explicit and emphatic terms. It is given with all the 
force of logical implication in the requirement of faith 
in the redeeming Christ as the necessary condition of 
forgiveness and salvation. It is further verified as the 
only explanation of the sufferings and death of Christ, 
Further proof will be given in its proper place. 

3 Proof in the Mode of Mediation. — The facts of 
the redemptive mediation of Christ are of no ordinary 
character. Indeed, they are so extraordinary as to 
require the profoundest necessity for their vindication 
under a specially providential economy. The incar- 
'Chap. ii: I, 4, 5, 6. 



62 Necessity for Atonement 

nation of the Son of God is a marvelous event. Its 
deeper meaning we read only in the light of his own 
character and rank. In the form of God, he has a 
rightful glory in equality with him. This he surren- 
ders, and takes, instead, the form of a servant, in the 
likeness of men. His estate is in the deepest abase- 
ment. He is a man of sorrows, and acquainted with 
grief. He bears the reproaches and hatreds of men. 
His sufferings have unfathomed depths. After the 
profound self-humiliation in the incarnation, he yet fur- 
ther humbles himself and becomes obedient unto death, 
even the death of the cross. 1 

The will of the Father is concurrent with the will of 
the Son in this whole transaction. While the Son 
comes in the gladness of filial obedience and the com- 
passion of redeeming love, the Father sends him forth, 
and prepares for him a body for his priestly sacrifice." 
The infinite sacrifice of this concurring love of the Fa- 
ther and the Son affirms the deepest necessity for an 
atonement as the ground of forgiveness. 

Thus, on the authority of the Scriptures, in their 
most explicit and emphatic utterances, and by the re- 
quirement of faith in Christ as the condition of the 
salvation which he brings, and by the logic of all the 
cardinal facts which enter into his redeeming work, we 
have the necessity for an atonement in his vicarious 
sufferings and death. 

1 Psa 69: 9; Rom. 15: 3; PhiL 2:6-8; 1 Tim. 3: 16. 
*Psa. 40: 6-8; Heb. 10: 5-9. 



in Moral Government. 68 

1. 

Necessity in Moral Government. 

Whether the necessity for an atonement m manifest 
in the reason of the case or not does not directly affect 
the utterances of Scripture thereon ; but indirectly, it 
is a question of special interest. Such a necessity, 
clearly ascertained, will be helpful in determining the 
true doctrine, as the nature of the atonement must an- 
swer to its necessity. It will, also, be of service in the 
defense of the atonement, and in its commendation to 
a common acceptance in faith. Did cardinal facts, in 
intimate relation to the atonement, pronounce against 
it, or were they merely silent respecting its necessity, 
its maintenance would be far more difficult. The 
Scriptures are sufficient for evangelical minds. But 
many minds are not in such a state. To such the con- 
currence of reason with revelation is specially helpful 
to faith. There is such a concurrence on the necessity 
for atonement. 

In treating the question of necessity, either of two 
methods might be adopted : first, to determine the re- 
lation of the atonement to forgiveness, and hence de- 
duce its necessity ; or, second, to ascertain the hinder- 
ance to a mere administrative forgiveness, and thus 
find the necessity. The latter is the better method, 
especially as it mainly defers the question of theories 
to a more appropriate place. We ground the necessity 
in the fact and requirements of moral government. 

1. None without such Ground. — Only in the fact of a 
divine moral government can there be a reason for any 



Q4 Necessity for Atonement 

question respecting the necessity for an atonement. If 
we are not under law to God we are without sin. If 
without sin, we have nothing to be forgiven. Hence 
there could be for us no necessary ground of forgive- 

ness. , 

2. Fact of a Moral Government.- God being God. 
and the Creator of men, and men being what they are, a 
moral government is the profoundest moral necessity. 
We have a moral nature, with the powers of an ethical 
life. Our character is determined according to the 
development and use of these powers in active life. 
Herein is involved our profoundest personal interest. 
We also deeply affect each other, and after the man- 
ner of our own life. Here is a law of great evil. Nor 
would the fact be other, except infinitely worse, were 
we wholly without law from heaven. The less men 
know of a divine law, with its weightier obligations 
and sanctions, the lower they sink into moral corrup- 
tion and ruin. The moral powers and the forces of 
evil are full of spontaneous impulse. Nor do they 
await the occasion of a revealed law for their corrupt- 
ing and ruinous activity. And however the absence of 
all divine law might change our relation to judicial 
penalty, our moral ruin would be, nevertheless, inevita- 
ble and utter. Now, should we even concede God's 
indifference to his own claims upon our obedience and 
love, it would be irrational, and blasphemous even, to 
assume his indifference to all the interests of virtue 
and well-being in us. He cannot overlook us. His 
own perfections constrain his infinite regard for our 
welfare. Under the condition of such facts there is, 



in Moral Government. 65 

and there must be, a divine moral government over us. 
The moral consciousness of humanity affirms the fact 
of such a government. 1 

IL 

Requisites of Moral Government. 

1. Adjustment to Subjects. — Within the moral realm 
subjects may differ: possibly, in some facts of their 
personal constitution; certainly, in their moral state 
and tendencies. A wise government must vary its pro- 
visions in adjustment to the requirement of such differ- 
ences. In some facts the divine law must be the same 
for all. It must require the obedience of all; for such 
is the right of the divine Ruler, and the common obli- 
gation of his subjects. It must guard the rights and 
interests of all. Beyond such facts, yet for the reason 
of them, the provisions of law, as means to the great 
ends of moral government, should vary as subjects dif- 
fer. The same principles which imperatively require 
a moral government for moral beings, also require its 
economy in adjustment to any considerable peculiari 
ties of moral condition and tendency. 

2. Specially for Man. — This law has special signifi- 
cance, and should not be overlooked in the present 
inquiry. We are seeking for the necessity of an atone- 
ment in the requirements of moral government; and 
we shall more readily find it in view of our own moral 
tendencies and needs. The atonement, while directly 
for man, has infinitely wider relations than the present 

1 Bishop Butler : " Analogy of Religion," part i, chapters ii, iii. 
Dr. Gillett : " The Moral System." 



66 Necessity foe Atonement 

sphere of humanity. Indirectly it concerns all intelli- 
gences, and is, no doubt, in adjustment to all mora) 
interests. 1 Still, in its immediate purpose, it is a pro- 
vision for the forgiveness and salvation of sinful men. 
The atonemeLt is, therefore, a measure introduced into 
the divine government as immediately over us, and itt 
special necessity must arise from the interests so direct- 
ly involved. 

i. A Law of Duty. — Subjects should know the will of 
the Sovereign. There are things to be done, and things 
not to be done. Nor can such things always be known 
either by reason or experience. This may be true even 
with the highest in perfection, and with every thought 
and feeling responsive to duty. Most certainly is it 
true of us. The mode in which the law of duty shall 
be given is not first in importance. It is the law itself 
that is so essential. How God may reveal his will to 
angels we know not, because we know neither his modes 
of expression nor their powers of apprehension. In 
some mode it is made known, and so becomes the law 
of their duty. And God has made known his will to 
us. This is chiefly done through revelation, though we 
have some light through the moral reason and the di- 
rect agency of the Holy Spirit. God gave a law to 
Adam, communicated his will to the patriarchs, wrote 
the decalogue on tables of stone for Israel and for man, 
spake often to the people by the prophets. And Christ 
summed up the law of Christian duty in the two great 
commandments. It is not requisite that every particu- 
lar duty should be given in a special statute. This 
1 Chapter x. 



in Morai, Government. 67 

would be for us an impracticable code. We have the 
law of duty, in a far better form, in the great moral 
principles given in the Gospels. And thus we have the 
divine will revealed to us as the law of our duty. 

ii. The Sanction of Rewards. — In the highest conceiv- 
able perfection, with the clearest apprehension of duty, 
with every sentiment responsive to its behests and with 
no tendency nor temptation to the contrary, obedience 
would be assured without the sanction of rewards. In 
such a state, however munificent the divine favors 
might be to such obedience, penalty would have no 
necessary governmental function. But when obedience 
is difficult and its failure a special liability — where there 
is spiritual darkness and apathy, a strong tendency to 
evil, and the incoming of much fierce temptation — the 
case is very different. In such a state, duty must have 
the support of pending rewards. They must form a 
part of the law, and have as distinct an announce- 
ment as its precepts. Otherwise, government is void 
of a necessary adjustment to the moral state of its 
subjects. 

Such is the requirement of our moral condition. 
With us there are many hinderances to duty, and the 
liability to sin is great. There is moral darkness, spir- 
itual apathy, a strong tendency to evil, and the incom- 
ing of much temptation. We deeply need the moral 
sanctions of law in the promise of good and the immi- 
nence of penalty. And however defective the virtue 
wrought merely under the influence of such motives, 
they are clearly necessary to the ordinary morality of 
life. Whether in view of human or divine law, or of 



(58 Necessity foe Atonement 

the history of the race, every candid man must confess 
the necessity of such support to the social and public 
morality, and that without it there could be no true 
civil life. It was in the conviction of such a truth that 
the ancient sages asserted the necessity of religion to 
the life of the State and the well-being of society, and 
that the ancient lawgivers and rulers maintained relig- 
ious institutions and services for the sake of the support 
which the expectation of rewards in a future state gave 
to law and duty in the present life. 1 And for us as a 
race there is the profoundest need of penalty as a fact 
of law. With the vicious, as the many would be with- 
out the law as a school-master, the imminence of penalty 
is a far weightier sanction of law than the promise of 
reward. 

3. Divi?ie Apportionment of Rewards. — It is the pre- 
rogative of the divine Ruler to determine the rewards 
of human conduct. No other can determine them 
either rightfully or wisely. Specially are we void of 
both the prerogative and the capacity for their proper 
apportionment. Even on the plane of secular duties 
and interests, and with the gathered experience of ages, 
questions of penalty are still the perplexing problems 
of the most highly civilized States. And surely we 
should not assume a capacity for the adjustment of law 
and its rewards to the requirements of the divine gov- 
ernment. But God comprehends the whole question, 
and has full prerogative in its decisions. He knows 
what measure of rewards is befitting his justice and 

1 Bishop Warburton : " The Divine Legation of Moses ; " books 
ii, iii. 



in Moral Government. 69 

goodness, and required by the interests of his moral 
government. And, accordingly, he has given us the 
law of our duty, with its announced rewards of obe- 
dience and sin. 

III. 
Measure of Penalty. 

1, No Arbitrary Appointment. — God determines the 
measure of penalty, but not arbitrarily. His infinite 
sovereignty asserts no disregard of the principles of 
justice, nor of the rights and interests of his subjects. 
He is a wise and good Sovereign, as he is a just and 
holy one. 

2. Determining Laws : — 

i. The Demerit of Sin. — Sin has intrinsic demerit. 
It deserves to be punished. And God has the exact 
measure of its desert. Whether divine justice must, in 
the obligation of judicial rectitude, punish sin in the 
full measure of its demerit, we shall have a more ap- 
propriate place to inquire. But so far penalty may be 
carried. Divine justice, in its distinctive retributive 
function, has no reason for pause short of this. In its 
own free course it would so punish all sin. But justice 
cannot carry its penalties beyond the demerit of sin. 
Nor can it suffer any interests of moral government to 
carry them beyond this limit. Nay, punishment cannot 
go beyond. Whatever transcends the intrinsic demerit 
of sin ceases in all that transcendence to be punishment. 
Hence, while the inherent turpitude of sin is the real 
and only ground of punishment, its own measure is a 
limitation of the penalty of law. 

ii. The Hector al Function of Penalty. — It is an impor- 



70 Necessity fob Atonemeni 

tant office of penalty to conserve the interests of tLe 
government. And we here use the term government, 
not in any ideal or abstract sense, but as including the 
divine Sovereign ruling in its administration, and the 
moral beings over whom he rules. The rights and 
glory of God are concerned: the profoundest inter- 
ests of men are concerned. So far we may speak with 
certainty, however it may be with other orders of moral 
beings. Hence the rectoral function of penalty is a 
most important one. Its imjjortance rises in the meas- 
ure of the interests which it must conserve. 

It must fulfill its rectoral office specially as a restraint 
upon sin. It must, therefore, be wisely adjusted in its 
measure to this specific end. Two facts condition its 
restraining force: one, the strength of our tendency to 
sin; the other, the tone of our motivity to penalty as 
an impending infliction. Both of these facts deeply 
concern the measure of penalty required by the highest 
interests of moral government. With a strong tend- 
ency to sin, and a feeble motivity to the imminence of 
penalty — facts so broadly and deeply written in human 
history — penalties must be the severer. The interests 
of moral government may require them even in the 
full measure of the demerit of sin. Up to this limit, 
whatever God may see to be requisite to these interests 
will not fail of his appointment as the penalty of sin 
All the fundamental principles which determine his in- 
stitution of the wisest and best government must so 
determine him respecting the measure of penalty. 



in Moral Government. 71 

IV. 

Necessity for Penalty. 

We do uot allege such a necessity for penalty as 
arises in physical causation. The physical evil and 
moral wretchedness which follow upon our sinful con* 
duct, but really as consequent to our constitution and 
relations, are not strictly of the nature of punishment, 
thougli such is a very common view. That sin brings 
misery is in the order of the divine constitution of 
things. It is not clear that there could be such a con- 
stitution of moral beings that suffering would not fol- 
low upon sin. Indeed, the contrary is manifest. But 
what so follows as a natural result, though in an order 
of things divinely constituted, is not strictly penal. 
Such naturally -consequent evil may have in the divine 
plan an important ministry in the economy of moral 
government. But punishment, strictly, is a divine in- 
fliction of penalty upon sin in the order of a judicial 
administration. The necessity for penalty, therefore, 
is not from necessary causation, but from sufficient 
moral grounds. Penalty has such a necessity in the in- 
terest of moral government, except as its office may be 
fulfilled by some substitutional measure. In the moral 
realm there is a divine moral Ruler; and the vital truth 
of the present question must be viewed in the light of 
his perfections and rectoral relations. In such light 
the moral necessity for penalty is manifest. 

1. From its Rectoral Office. — Omitting other things 
for the present, penalty has a necessary office in the 
good of moral government. Justice itself is directly 



72 Necessity for Atonement 

concerned. Nor is any requirement of justice more 
imperative. The honor and authority of government 
must be maintained for the sake of the divine Ruler 
therein, and for the sake of the moral beings over whom 
he rules. Sin must be restrained and moral order main- 
tained for the honor of God and the good of moral be- 
ings. The innocent must be protected against injury 
and wrong. Justice cannot overlook these profound 
interests. In such neglect it would cease to be justice. 
It must sacredly guard them. A necessary power for 
their protection lies in its penalty. This it may not 
omit, except through some measure equally fulfilling the 
same rectoral office, while forgiveness is granted to re- 
penting sinners. 

2. From the Divine Holiness.— God, as a perfectly 
holy being, must give support to righteousness, and 
place barriers in the way of sin. He must seek, in the 
use of all proper means, the prevention or utmost 
restraint of sin. But in the moral state of humanity 
penalty is a necessary force for such limitation. Lift 
the restraint of its imminence from the soul and con- 
science of men, and, wicked as they now are, they 
would be immensely worse. Even a presumptive hope 
of impunity emboldens cm. The divine forbearance in 
the deferment of merited punishment is made the oc- 
casion of a deeper impenitence, and a more persistent 
impiety : " Because sentence against an evil work is 
not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons 
of men is fully set in them to do evil." ' And a re- 
leasement from all amenability to penalty would bo to 
1 Ecclesiastes 8 : 11. 



in Moral Government. 73 

many a divine license to the freest vicious indulgence. 
The divine holiness, therefore, must require the re- 
straint of sin through the ministry of penalty, except 
as the interest of righteousness may be protected 
through some other means. 

3 From the Divine Goodness. — Nor less must the 
divine goodness support the punitive office of justice. 
Sin brings misery. It must bring misery, even in the 
absence of all infliction of penalty. The race would 
be far more wretched in the absence of all penalty 
than it is under an amenability to its rectoral inflic- 
tions. While, therefore, God punishes with reluc- 
tance, and with profound sympathy for the suffering 
sinner, yet, as a God of love, he must maintain the 
office of merited penalty in the interest of human hap- 
piness. The only ground of its surrender, even on 
the part of the divine goodness, must be found in 
some vicarious measure equally answering the same 
end. 

4. A Meal Necessity for Atonement. — The logical 
result is, the necessity for an atonement. Without 
such a provision sinners cannot be forgiven and saved. 
The impossibility is concluded by the facts and princi- 
ples which this chapter unfolds. The necessity for the 
redemptive mediation of Christ lies ultimately in the 
perfections of God as moral Ruler. It is, therefore, 
most imperative. 

5. Nature of the Atonement Indicated. — We have not 
yet reached the place for the more formal discussion of 
the true theory of atonement; yet certain facts and 
principles have already come into view which so clearly 



74 Necessity for Atonement 

indicate its nature, that their doctrinal meaning may 
properly be noted here. 

We have the truth of a divine moral government as 
the ground-fact in the necessity for an atonement. 
We have found the facts and principles of such a gov- 
ernment strongly affirmative of this necessity. Thoy 
thus respond to the explicit affirmations of Scripture 
thereon. Further, we have found this necessity to be 
grounded in the profoundest interests of moral govern- 
ment, for the protection of which the penalties of the 
divine justice have a necessary function. Here we 
have the real hinderance to a mere administrative for- 
giveness, and, therefore, the real necessity for an 
atonement. The true office of atonement follows ac- 
cordingly. The vicarious sufferings of Christ answer 
for the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in 
the interest of moral government, so that such interest 
does not suffer through the forgiveness of sin. This is, 
however, not the whole service of the redemptive medi- 
ation of Christ, but a chief fact in its more specific 
office, and one answering to the deepest necessity foi 
an atonement. 

The nature of the atonement is thus determined. 
The vicarious sufferings of Christ are a provisory sub- 
stitute for penalty, and not the actual punishment of 
sin. He is not such a substitute in penalty as to pre- 
serve the same retributive administration of justice as 
in the actual punishment of sinners. The sufferings of 
Christ, endured for us as sinners, so fulfill the obliga- 
tion of justice and the office of penalty in the interest 
of moral government as to render forgiveness, od 



in MoRAx Government. 75 

proper conditions, entirely consistent therewith. Such 
is the nature of the atonement. 

Such a view fully answers to the correlate relation 
of God and men as Sovereign and subjects, and to the 
facts of their sinfulness and subjection to his righteous 
displeasure and judicial condemnation. Sin offends his 
justice and love, incurs his righteous displeasure, and 
constitutes in them punitive desert. Such are the facts 
which the Scriptures so fully recognize. And God, as 
a righteous Ruler, must inflict merited penalty upon sin, 
not, indeed, in the gratification of any mere personal 
resentment, nor in the satisfaction of an absolute re- 
tributive justice, but in the interest of moral govern- 
ment, or find some rectorally compensatory measure for 
the remission of penalty. Such a measure there is in 
the redemptive mediation of Christ. The conclusion 
gives us an atonement, not by an absolute substitution 
in punishment, but by a provisory substitution in suf- 
fering. 



76 Schemes Without Atonement. 



CHAPTER IV. 

SCHEMES WITHOUT ATONEMENT. 

QOME hold the fact of salvation who yet deny a 
vicarious atonement. Such consistently deny its 
necessity. There is, in their view, no element of di- 
vine justice, nor interest of moral government, which 
makes it necessary. Sin may be forgiven, or ultimate 
salvation attained without it. These great blessings 
have other grounds or modes. In the order of this 
position, and as consistency requires, certain grounds or 
modes are alleged as entirely sufficient for our forgive- 
ness or future happiness. Thus we have schemes of 
salvation without an atonement in Christ, and in the 
denial of its necessity. It may be proper to test such 
schemes. 

I. 
After the Penalty. 
Universalism and Calvinism differ widely in their 
completed systems — if we may speak of the former as 
a system. They are infinitely apart respecting the 
demerit of sin and the measure of its merited penalty. 
Yet the two are at one in the cardinal principle that 
sin must be punished according to its desert. We speak 
of these systems in their more regular form, not in all 
their phases. But such a principle in Universalism, as 
in any non-atonement scheme, gives no place for sal- 
vation. 



After the Penary. 77 

1. Solvation Excluded. — In any true sense of the 
term, salvation is possible only as a real forgiveness of 
sin, or its substitutional punishment, is possible. Where 
the penalty is fully suffered by the offender, as Uni- 
versalism asserts it must be, there is no salvation. When 
a criminal has suffered the full penalty awarded him, 
his discharge is no matter of grace, and his further pun- 
ishment would be an injustice. There is neither for- 
giveness nor salvation in his releasement. On the 
scheme of Universalism, the same is true in every in- 
stance of divine penalty. 

Such a scheme is false to the clearly revealed fact of 
forgiveness; false to the soteriology of the Scriptures. 
The fact is deeply wrought into the Gospel of Christ 
that he is a Saviour through the forgiveness of sin; a 
Saviour from the punishment of sin; and such a Saviour 
through an atonement in his blood. These facts have 
been set forth and verified by the Scriptures, and need 
not here be repeated. 

2. Final Happiness not a Salvation. — The denial of 
ultimate happiness as a salvation is a logical sequence 
of this scheme. The same is true whether merited 
punishment is limited to this life or continues for a 
greater or less time in the next. There is no salva- 
tion in the termination of such a punishment, whether 
in the present or future world. Justice has no fur- 
ther penal claim. And while the happiness then be- 
ginning and flowing on forever might be far above any 
merit in us, still it would not be a salvation. Certain- 
ly it would be no such a salvation as the Scriptures 
reveal in Christ. In the truest and deepest sense fu- 



78 Schemes Without Atonement. 

ture happiness is a salvation through his atonement. 1 
Hence the scheme which precludes this fact cannot be 
true. 

3. Impossible in Endless Penalty. — A scheme of ulti« 
mate and endless happiness, after a full person il satis- 
faction of justice in penalty, must limit the duration 
of punishment, however long it may continue in a fu- 
ture state. If penalty be eternal, there can be no after- 
state of happiness. Here arises a great question, the 
discussion of which would lead us quite aside from the 
subject in hand. We simply note in passing, that the 
Scriptures express the duration of penalty in terms 
most significant of its eternity. What seems specially 
decisive is, that it is so expressed when placed in im- 
mediate contrast with the endless reward of the right- 
eous: "And these shall go away into everlasting pun- 
ishment: but the righteous into life eternal." 2 The 
same original word — aluviov — expresses the duration 
in the two cases; and there is no more apparent reason 
for its limitation in the former than in the latter. In 
such a destiny on account of sin there can be no state 
of happiness after the penalty. Nor can the necessity 
for an atonement be so set aside. 

H. 

In Sovereign Forgiveness. 

The necessity for an atonement is denied on the as 

sumption that God, in mere sovereignty or on a merely 

personal disposition of kindness, and without regard to 

1 John 3 : 14-16 ; 6 : 47-51 ; 10 : 27, 28 ; Rom. 5 : 20, 21 ; 6 : 23 ; 
2 Tim. 2: 10; Heb. 5 : 9; 9: 15; 1 Pet. 5: 10; Rev. 5: 9, 10; 
7 : 14-17. a Matt. 25 : 46. 



In Sovereign Forgiveness. 79 

the ends of justice in the interest of moral government, 
may and doe3 freely forgive sin. There are many ob- 
jections to this view, and such as entirely discredit it. 

1. An Assumption against Facts. — That God for- 
gives and saves sinners on a mere arbitrary sovereignty 
or pleasure, and without regard to the requirements of 
moral government, is without proof, and the sheerest 
assumption. Moreover, the facts of a providential his- 
tory, now stretching away through many centuries, are 
full in its contradiction. Were the mere pleasure of 
God, as a kindly personal disposition, his only law, as 
this position assumes, there would be no instance of 
punishment. But there are many such. No one can 
rationally deny it. Now these facts are contradictory 
to such a mode of forgiveness. As the generations 
press to their altars with conscience of sin and with 
sacrifices of atonement, the voice of humanity, in the 
deepest utterances of its religious consciousness, pro- 
nounces against it. Revelation, in words the most expli- 
cit and emphatic, confirms the judgment of humanity. 

2. Contrary to Divine Government. — There is a moral 
government. There is such a government as divinely 
instituted. It is without any provision for a mere ad- 
ministrative forgiveness. Nor can it admit any such 
forgiveness, because contrary to its own principles anrl 
measures. God, in full view of our moral state, and 
with infinite regard for our good, has instituted his 
government in adjustment to our duty and welfare. 
Penalty itself arises out of the requirement and inter- 
est of moral government. Hence its suspension with- 
out regard to any new provision would be contrary to 



80 Schemes Without Atonement. 

government as divinely instituted, and also to the di- 
vine perfections in so ordering its provisions. Farther, 
it would set the divine administration in direct oppo- 
sition to the divine word. In clearest terms God has 
announced the penalties of sin. Now it is presumed 
that lie will sovereignly interfere, and, without regard 
to any new provision, grant a universal forgiveness. 
Surely it is a bold assumption that God will so contra- 
dict himself, and set his administration against his own 
law. 

3. Subversive of all Government.— If forgiveness is 
so granted it must be universal. There could be no 
other law of salvation. And, otherwise, it would nei- 
ther answer for our need nor for the divine impartial- 
ity. But with such universal forgiveness government 
really no longer exists. Justice makes no practical dis- 
tinction between obedience and sin. 

A law of duty without a penalty for transgression is 
a mere advisory rule of life, and, for us, void of neces- 
sary enforcing sanction. It would virtually say to 
every man, Do as you please; when it is certain that 
most men would please to do wrong, and moral ruin be 
the result. How long could civil government be thus 
maintained ? A partial uncertainty of penalty, a pre- 
sumptive hope of impunity, emboldens crime. The 
license of a universal forgiveness would open the flood- 
gates of evil and hasten the social and political ruin. 

As a race we are even more propense to the disre- 
gard of moral duty and to sin against God. It may be 
claimed, and freely granted, that the grace of divine 
forgiveness is a most weighty reason for grateful piety. 



Through Repentance. 81 

But the common moral apathy would be insensible to 
its persuasive force. Facts clearly show that with most 
men the divine goodness pleads in vain. Even the 
cross, with the admission of its atoning love, so pleads 
in vain. Delays of punishment, with salvation for their 
end, are perverted to a more persistent evil doing. For 
such a race the free remission of all penalty would be 
subversive of all government, and whelm in ruin the 
profound moral interests which the divine government 
must conserve. Such inevitable consequences utterly 
discredit the assumption of forgiveness and salvation 
on mere sovereignty. 

III. 

Through Repentance. 

It is specially urged that repentance is a proper and 

entirely sufficient ground of forgiveness, and, hence, 

that there is no necessity for an atonement. This is a 

common position with Rationalistic schemes. 

1. Repentance Necessary. — The necessity for a true 
repentance, in order to forgiveness and salvation, is not 
only conceded, but firmly maintained in any proper 
doctrine of atonement. No provision of a redemptive 
economy could supersede this necessity. Impenitence 
after sinning is self -justification, and the very spirit of 
rebellion; while penitence is the only self-condemnation, 
and the only return to obedience. There must, there- 
fore, be a genuine repentance. There can be neithei 
forgiveness nor any real redemption from sin without it. 

2. Only Kind Naturally Possible. — The logic of this 
question will not concede the gratuitous assumption of 
a true repentance as possible in the resources of our 



82 Schemes Without Atonement. 

own nature. A soul with the disabilities of depravity, 
and under the power of sin, cannot so repent. This ac- 
cords with the facts of our moral condition as clearly 
given in the Scriptures, and also with a common expe- 
rience and observation. There is a certain kind of re- 
pentance within our own power. We instinctively 
shrink from punishment, and, therefore, necessarily 
regret the sins which expose us to its infliction. But 
such regret implies no true sense of sin, and constitutes 
no necessary repentance. It is merely what the Script- 
ures designate as the sorrow of the world working 
death, and so discriminate it from a true godly sorrow 
for sin, working repentance unto salvation. 1 The 
former repentance, and the only kind naturally possi- 
ble, is no proper ground of forgiveness. Nor has it any 
true redemptive power in the moral life. 

3. Such Repentance Inevitable. — As the product of an 
indestructible, element of our mental constitution, such 
a repentance is inevitable, and hence must be universal. 
As we necessarily shrink from penalty, so we necessa- 
rily regret the evil deeds which subject us to its inflic- 
tion. But what so arises naturally, and without any 
element of true contrition, can be no sufficient ground 
of forgiveness. Besides, as a necessary product, and 
therefore universal, it would involve a universal for- 
giveness. The result would be the subversion ol all 
government, just as on a universal sovereign forgive- 
ness. With such a policy no civil government could 
be maintained. Nor could a divine moral government 
be so maintained. 

»2Ck)r. 1: 9, 10. 



Through Repentance. 83 

Nor is there validity in any rejoinder, that as the 
Gospel freely offers forgiveness on a repentance pos- 
sible to all, it might hence be universal. This is true, 
but only in an economy of grace which provides for a 
true repentance, and gives to the ministry of forgive- 
ness the moral support of the redemptive mediation 
of Christ. 

4. Sin Unrealized. — In the repentance naturally pos- 
sible, sin is neither felt nor confessed, in a true sense of 
its intrinsic evil, but only selfishly, on account of its 
results in personal suffering. It, therefore, can have 
no real redemptive or reformative power in the moral 
life. And even were forgiveness permissible on the 
ground of so defective a repentance, a true salvation is 
not so possible. Forgiveness so easily granted never 
could bring the turpitude of sin home to the moral 
consciousness. To this extent would be the loss of 
moral benefit. The intenser the sense of sin, and the 
profounder the grateful love for the mercy of forgive- 
ness, the more thorough is the moral recovery and 
salvation. It is easy to decide where there are such 
experiences. They are realized only through the help- 
ing and forgiving grace of redemption. As souls gather 
around the cross, they have the deepest contrition for 
sin and the most grateful love for the gracious forgive- 
ness. 1 Innumerable facts of religious experience so 
witness. And even if we could set aside the deeper 
uecessity for an atonement, there is yet a profound 
moral necessity for the redemptive mediation of Christ 
in order to the moral recovery and salvation of the soul. 
1 Ullman : " The Sinlessness of Jesus," p. 251. 



84 Schemes Without Atonement. 

5. True Repentance only by Grace. — The moral disa- 
bilities consequent upon depravity and sin render a 
true repentance impossible in the resources of our own 
nature. Such a state is one of spiritual blindness, in- 
sensibility, impotence, death. So the Scriptures repre- 
sent it. 1 Hence, they attribute a genuine repentance, 
both in its privilege and possibility, to the grace of the 
atonement and the agency of the Holy Spirit so pro- 
cured. Thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise 
again, that repentance and remission of sins might be 
preached in his name. And a special office of the Holy 
Spirit, in a mission provided through the redemptive 
mediation of Christ, is to bring the sense of sin home 
to the conscience in a conviction necessary to a true 
repentance. So Christ, having redeemed us with his 
blood, is exalted a Prince and a Saviour to give repent- 
ance and remission of sins. 3 

The gracious ability and disposition to a true repent- 
ance are through the evangelical mission of the Spirit. 
Only thus have we an explanation of the mighty work 
wrought on that memorable day of Pentecost. The 
Spirit was shed forth, not only upon the apostles in the 
power of preaching, but also upon the people in the 
power of religious conviction. And no one who de- 
nies this mission of the Spirit as a procurement of the 
redemptive mediation of Christ, can account for the 
converting power of the Gospel on this day of Pente- 
cost, or for the work of religious revival in the history 
of Christianity. Hence it is an utterly futile attempt 

1 John 6: 44; Horn. 5: 6; 8: 3,4; Eph. 2: 1,2; 4: 18; CoL 2: 13. 
* Luke 24: 46, 47 ; John 16: 7-11; Acts 6: 31. 



Special Facts. 85 

to supersede the necessity for an atonement with the 
sufficiency of repentance, while the repentance itself i^ 
possible only through the grace of the atonement. 1 

IV 

Special Facts. 

There are a few facts specially urged against the 
necessity for an atonement which should have a brief 
notice. They are such as may be presented in a plau- 
sible light, but are without logical force as urged in the 
argument. 

1. Forgiving one Another. — We are required to for- 
give one another, and without any regard to an atone- 
ment. Now it is claimed, that if God requires us so 
to forgive, he will himself thus forgive. 2 Respecting 
our own duty no issue is made. Such a requirement is 
clearly given in the Scriptures. 3 But there is nothing, 
either in the nature or the manner of it, which furnishes 
any ground for the inference that the divine forgive- 
ness is without regard to an atonement. Indeed, one 
of the texts given in the reference, and which Wor- 

1 On the insufficiency of repentance as a ground of forgiveness : 
Bishop Butler: "Analogy of Religion," part ii, chap, v, IV, V; Magec : 
"Atonement and Sacrifice," dissertations iv, v ; Richard Watson : 
"Theological Institutes," vol. ii, pp. 96-102; Joseph Gilbert: "The 
Christian Atonement," pp. 217, 466; Marshal Randies: "Substitu- 
tion : Atonement," pp. 179-186. Any argument in these works pro- 
ceeding on the ground of an absolute necessity for penal satis- 
faction, we think invalid. But there is little of this, as neither of 
these authors represents a doctrine of atonement grounded in such 
a principle. 

1 Worcester : " The Atoning Sacrifice," pp. 121-129. 

• Matt. 18: 21, 22; Eph. 4; 32; Col. 3: 13. 



86 Schemes Without Atonement. 

cester cites for his position, is entirely to the contrary. 
" Forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake 
nath forgiven you." 

Account is also made of texts in which there is a 
coupling of our forgiving with the divine forgiving. 
ii we forgive, we shall be forgiven ; if we forgive not, 
we shall not be forgiven. 1 But the matter is still our 
duty of forgiving one another, accompanied, indeed, 
with its conditional relation to the divine forgiveness, 
but with no intimation that this is without regard to 
the atonement in Christ. 

There is another view of this case, and decisive 
against the inference adverse to the necessity for an 
atonement. This duty of forgiveness is the duty of 
private persons simply, and without any rectoral pre- 
rogative or obligation. One must so forgive, as the 
offense concerns himself only. Even the Christian 
ruler must so forgive. But who ever thinks of his car- 
rying this duty into his administration? When the 
offense is a crime in the law it has public relations, and 
he has rectoral obligations in the case. What he may 
and should do in a merely private relation he must 
not do as a minister of the law. God is moral ruler. 
Hence our forgiving one another has no such analogy 
to the divine forgiveness as to be the ground of an in- 
ference adverse to the necessity for an atonement. 

2. Parental Forgiveness. — There is properly such a 

forgiveness, yet there must be a limit even here, the 

disregard of which brings serious evil. Besides, the 

family circle is small, and rather private than public in 

1 Matt. 6: 12, 14, 15; Luke 6: 3t. 



Special Facts. 87 

its economy. It is constituted in peculiarly intimate 
and affectionate relations. It is, therefore, eminently 
a sphere for governing through the moral influences 
hence arising, or so rendered possible. But what may 
be fitting here is wholly inadmissible in a government 
of broad domain, and conditioned by very different 
influences and tendencies. The economy of the family 
will not answer for the government of the State, much 
less for the divine government of the world or the 
universe. God is ruler in a universal moral realm, and 
no propriety of mere parental forgiveness can prove 
that he may consistently forgive without an atone- 
ment. 

3. Parable of the Prodigal JSon. — The attempt to 
press this beautiful parable into the service of anti- 
atonement schemes is in the natural movement of Ra- 
tionalistic thought. "It is remarkable how perfectly 
this parable precludes every idea of the necessity of 
vicarious suffering, in order to the pardon of the peni- 
tent sinner. Had it been the special purpose of our 
Lord to provide an antidote for such a doctrine, it is 
difficult to conceive what could have been devised bet- 
ter adapted to that end." ' Even Mr. Chubb, certainly 
without much sympathy with Christianity, has a trea- 
tise on this parable, in which he insists that by special 
design it teaches the sufficiency of repentance as the 
ground of forgiveness ; that the free and gracious for- 
giveness of this father exemplifies the free and gracious 
forgiveness of the heavenly Father; and that such is at 
once the dictate of reason and the Gospel of Christ. 
'Worcester: "The Atoning Sacrifice," p. 216. 



88 Schemes Without Atonement. 

But it is certainly a queer kind of exegesis and logic 
which will claim a passage of Scripture that is entirely 
silent upon the atonement as decisive against both its 
reality and necessity. There is the greater violation of 
the laws of interpretation, because so many passages dc 
specially treat the atonement, and in a manner decisive 
of its reality and necessity. Besides, all the freeness 
of the divine forgiveness which this parable represents, 
and which we gratefully accept, is in the fullest con- 
sistency with the doctrine of a vicarious atonement. 

There is in this hasty and illogical method a neglect 
of vital and determining facts, and the assumption of a 
completeness of analogy which does not exist. The 
father in this parable appears and acts simply as such. 
Had he been a ruler also, and his son a criminal in the 
law, then, however gracious his fatherly affection, his 
rectoral obligations would have required recognition 
and observance. The vicious logic of this hasty meth- 
od is thus manifest. It wrongly assumes that God's 
sole relation to moral beings is that of Father. This 
error utterly vitiates the conclusion. As we have pre- 
viously noted, God is a moral Ruler as well as a gracious 
Father. Here is the vital, yet utterly neglected, distinc- 
tion between the earthly and the heavenly Father. 
And what God might do simply as a Father, he may 
not do as moral Ruler. 

Nor do these facts rob this parable of its lesson of 
grace. It is still true that the doctrine of atonement 
is in the fullest consistency with such a lesson. As 
this father graciously forgave his repenting son, so 
does God graciously forgive his repenting children. 



Special Facts. 89 

The one fact illustrates the other. But the Scriptures 
decide, and reason accords therewith, that it is through 
the atonement in Christ that God so forgives. He had 
no need for an atonement in his fatherly disposition, 
but only in the requirements of his rectoral obligations. 
Now that an atonement has been made, he may and 
does forgive his repenting children in all the fullness of 
his paternal grace and love. Thus we hold the full 
meaning of this lesson. We admire its grace. There 
is one of an infinitely deeper pathos. We read it in 
the sacrifice of the cross, as the atoning provision of 
the Father's love, that he might reach us in a gracious 
forgiveness. 



90 Theories of Atonement. 



CHAPTER V. 

THEORIES OF ATONEMENT. 

I. 

Preliminary. 

1. Earlier Views. — In the earlier history of the 
Church the redemption in Christ was received and 
given forth rather as a fact than as a doctrine. It was 
then, as it must ever be, the central truth of the Gos- 
pel. Christ was every- where proclaimed as a Sav- 
iour through his sacrificial death. Forgiveness and sal- 
vation were freely offered in his blood. But the great 
truth had its proclamation in the terms of Scripture 
rather than in the formulas of doctrine. This was 
proper, as it was natural. It is proper now, and will 
ever be so. Redemption, in all the preciousness of its 
truth and grace, has a living association with its own 
Scripture terms; and a disregard for this connection 
could not be other than a serious detriment. There 
were early utterances that well accord with strictly doc- 
trinal views; still there was no formal construction of 
a doctrine. 1 

Then came the singular notion of redemption by a 
ransom to Satan. It is not agreed when, nor with whom, 
it originated. Some find in Irenaeus, of the second 

1 Oxenham : " Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement," pp. 112-114 • 
Knapp : " Christian Theology," p. 480 ; Professor Smeaton : " The 
Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement," pp. 480-493 ; Dr. Dale : " The 
Atonement," pp. 269-278. 



Preliminary Facts. 91 

century, its first representative, while others would en- 
fcirely clear him of such a view. It certainly has a 
representative in the very gifted but speculative Origen, 
of the third century. Nor did it run its career without 
finding entertainment in the great and versatile mind of 
Augustine. It flourished in the Patristic period, and 
held its position until the beginning of the Scholastic, 
or the time of Anselm, late in the eleventh century. 1 

This very strange opinion was, probably, first sug- 
gested by certain texts of Scripture which represent us 
as in captivity or bondage to Satan, and our redemp- 
tion by Christ as a deliverance from his possession and 
power. These representations may have suggested the 
idea of a right to us in Satan — such a right as that in 
which slaves or captives in war were held. He had 
conquered us, and brought us into his possession. In 
the prevalent ideas of the time this was a valid and 
rightful possession. Hence, probably, came the idea of 
the death of Christ as a ransom to Satan for the cancel- 
ing of this claim. 

The view has a commercial sense — such as at a later 
period constituted a phase of the theory of Satisfaction, 
but wherein the ransom is paid to God. But this Pa- 
tristic scheme could not be permanent, and the marvel 
is that it continued so long. It is so incongruous to all 
cardinal facts so related to the atonement as to be de- 
cisive of its nature, that its dismission was a necessary 
result of their intelligent apprehension. 

1 Hagenbach: "History of Doctrines," vol. i, pp. 192, 193; Dr 
Shedd: "History of Christian Doctrine," vol. ii, pp. 212-226; Oxen- 
ham: " The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement," pp. 114-124. 



92 Theories of Atonement. 

2. Scientific Treatment. — The treatment of the atone- 
ment in a scientific, or more exact doctrinal manner, 
really began with Anselm, late in the eleventh century. 
His book, 1 though but a small one, is not improperly 
characterized as an "epoch-making book." It fell far 
short of controlling the doctrine of the Church on the 
atonement, yet it exerted a strong influence upon after 
discussions and opinions, whether accordant or in dis- 
sent. It furnished, though not in the full scientific 
sense usually claimed, a basis for the doctrine of Satis- 
faction as constructed in the Reformed soteriology. 
Reviews of the scheme of Anselm are so common to 
histories of doctrine, systems of theology, and mono- 
graphic discussions of atonement, that there is little 
need of special reference. 3 

We question neither the intellectual strength nor the 
intense religious earnestness of Anselm. And both are 
deeply wrought into his " Cur Deus Homo." That the 
usual estimate of his work greatly exaggerates the sci- 
entific result we as little question. Such exaggeration 
is specially with his more sympathetic reviewers. Dr. 
Shedd may be given as an instance.* The excess of 
merit, especially in its scientific phase, ascribed to the 
treatise of Anselm, must be apparent to any one upon a 
proper comparison in the case. 

"'Cur Deus Homo." Translated in "Bib. Sacra," xi, 729 ; xii, 52 
3 Ritschl : " History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and 

Reconciliation," pp. 22-35 ; Hagenbach . " History of Doctrines," vol. 

ii, pp. 32- 38 ; Professor Smeaton : " The Apostles' Doctrine of the 

Alonement," pp. 510-520; "Oxenham: " The Catholic Doctrine of 

the Atonement," pp. 166-174. 

J " History of Christian Doctrine," voL ii, pp. 273-286. 



Preliminary Facts. 98 

Anselni emphasizes certain principles or facts as fun- 
damental, and makes them the ground of his doctrine 
of atonement. Sin is the withholding from God his 
rightful claim, and is to him, on account of his charac- 
ter, an infinite wrong. The sinner is thus brought into 
an infinite indebtedness to the divine honor. This debt 
must be paid. God must not and cannot surrender his 
own personal right and honor, as he would do in a mere 
gratuitous forgiveness. The sinner never can, by any 
personal conduct, satisfy this claim. Therefore he 
must suifer the full punishment of his sins, or, as the 
only alternative, satisfaction must be rendered by an- 
other. 

It follows that the only salvation is through the com- 
pensatory service of a divine Mediator. In this exi- 
gency the Son of God, in compassion for perishing 
sinners, was incarnated in their nature, and in their be- 
half gave himself up in holy obedience and suffering to 
the Father. On account of his theanthropic character, 
his obedience and death are a full compensation to the 
violated honor of God, and, therefore, a true and suffi- 
cient ground of forgiveness. 1 

But neither essential element of the Satisfaction atone- 
ment, especially as scientifically wrought into this doc- 
trine, is distinctly given by Anselm. There is wanting 
both the fact of substitution and of imputation as scien- 
tifically linked in the Reformed doctrine. 

By common consent, the substitutive office of the act- 
ive obedience of Christ is not in the scheme of Anselm. 

1 Neander: "History of the Church," vol. iv, pp. 498, 499; Knapp: 
" Christian Theology," p. 402. 



94 Theories of Atonement. 

This view was first opened by Thomas Aquinas, but 
long waited for its completion. 1 

Nor did Anselm maintain the distinct view of penal 
substitution in redemption. He is so credited, but when 
interpreted after the ideas so fully wrought into the 
Reformed soteriology. Certain avowed principles re- 
specting the nature of sin and the necessity for divine 
satisfaction, in case of forgiveness, might imply a penal 
substitution, and do so imply in the doctrine of Satis- 
faction—a fact which gives occasion and currency to 
such interpretation of Anselm. But he never gave 
them such a meaning, nor found in penal substitution 
their necessary implication. He does assert that pun- 
ishment or satisfaction must follow every sin : "Necesse 
est ut omne peccatum satisf actio ant poena sequatur." 2 
Here, however, punishment and satisfaction are dis- 
criminated and taken as alternately necessary, while, in 
the doctrine of Satisfaction the punishment of sin has 
no alternative. It is the only possible satisfaction of 
justice, and the two terms are really one in meaning; 
the ministry of justice varying only by an exchange of 
penal subjects, not in the execution of penalty. An- 
selm propounded no such doctrine of satisfaction by 
penal substitution. Nor are we without the support 
of good authority in so writing. 8 

Anselm represents the mediation of Christ in holy 

Dr. Shedd: "History of Christian Doctrine," vol. ii, pp. 309, 310. 

Opera Omnia, (Migne's,) Toraus Primus, 381. 
8 Neander: "History of the Church," vol. iv, p. 500; Prof. Bruce: 
" The Humiliation of Christ," p. 353 ; Oxenham : " The Catholic Doc 
trine of the Atonement," p. 172. 



Preliminary Facts. 95 

obedience and suffering as infinitely meritorious, and, 
therefore, as justly entitled to an infinitely great re- 
ward. But as an absolutely perfect being, and in pos- 
session of all blessedness, be was not himself properly 
rewardable: therefore the merited reward may, and 
on his preference should, go to sinners in forgiveness 
and salvation. 1 But the doctrine, in its principles and 
structure, is very different from the doctrine of Satisfac- 
tion, and in some of its facts really very like the Middle 
theory. 2 

3. Popular Number of Theories. — Historically, or in 
popular enumeration, theories of atonement are many. 
Nor is this strange. The subject is one of the pro- 
foundest. The facts which it concerns are of stupen- 
dous character. Its relations to the great questions of 
theology and philosophy are vitally intimate. In scien- 
tific treatment it should be accordant to the system of 
doctrines into which it is wrought, and to the philos- 
ophy in which the system is grounded. Further, some 
minds are given to speculation and to fanciful views, 
or, for a lack of proper analysis and construction, to 
take some one fact — perhaps a merely incidental one — 
for the whole truth, while others would timidly avoid 
the deeper principles of the question. In such facts we 
have reason enough for many theories. 

Yet authors widely differ respecting the number 
Dr. Hodge enumerates five, but omits material modi- 
fications, while yet bringing them fully into his discus- 
sion. 9 Professor Crawford names thirteen theories as 

' "Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xii, pp. 80-82. a Chap, v, IT, 6. 

8 "Systematic Theology," vol. II, pp. 563-589. 



96 Theories op Atonement. 

substitutes for what he chooses to call the Catholic doc- 
trine — the Calvinistic doctrine of Satisfaction. Then 
he adds the later theory of Dr. Bushnell, thus giving 
us in all fifteen. 1 The Rev. A] ford Cave names as 
many. 2 Such large enumeration, however, is super- 
ficial, and made with little regard to analysis and scien- 
tific classification. In the same manner the number 
might be carried much higher, as must be apparent to 
any one familiar with the current of opinion on the re- 
demptive work of Christ. 

4. Scientific Enumeration. — The truth to be inter- 
preted in the doctrine of atonement is, the work of Christ 
in our salvation. But he can save us only by some 
work or influence within us, or with God for us, or by 
both. Such work or influence, whatever it is, must an- 
swer to the need in the case. Some need there must be, 
else a redemptive mediation has neither place nor office. 
Many who deny an absolute need will yet admit a rel- 
ative one, and so urgent as to give propriety and value 
to a redemptive economy. 

Two facts vitally concern the question of need, re- 
specting which there should be a common agreement: 
one, that we are sinful and of sinful tendency; the 
other, that we can be saved only in a deliverance from 
sin and in a moral harmony with God. Without such 
facts there is no place for the redemptive work of Christ 
and no saving office which he can fulfill. 

What, then, is the need for the redemptive mediation 
of Christ in a salvation so realized ? Why cannot man 

1 "The Scripture Doctrine of Atonement," pp. 285-395. 
* "The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice," pp 14-16 



Pbeliminaey Facts. 97 

achieve his own deliverance from sin and harmonize 
himself with God? Why cannot God achieve both 
without a mediation in Christ ? Every theory of atone- 
ment that may properly be called such, must answer to 
these questions. Every theory must, in logical con- 
sistency, accord with the answer given. The true the- 
ory will be found in accord with the true answer. 

We thus have principles whereby we may test theo- 
ries, and determine their legitimacy or truth. Some 
give a determining position to one fact in the need, 
some to another. Some find all the need in the moral 
disabilities of man; others find all in God. Every 
theory must take its place in a scientific classification 
according to the dominant fact of need which it alleges. 

By these same principles we may greatly reduce the 
popular number of theories — such as given by Professor 
Crawford. Such reduction is specially possible respect- 
ing theories wholly grounded in certain disabilities of 
our moral state. The subjective facts of moral disa- 
bility, out of which the need for a redemptive media- 
tion is alleged to arise, may be numerically many, and 
yet so one in kind that one objective law of redemptive 
help will answer for all. And the law of redemptive 
help, though revealed in many facts, may still be one 
law, and working only in one mode. Hence, theories 
of atonement popularly numbered after such many facts, 
may all be reduced to unity under one generic fact of 
moral need, or under one generic law of redemptive 
help. In a like mode there may be a reduction, though 
not an equal one, of theories which ground the necessity 
for an atonement in the requirements of the divine 



98 Theories of Atonement. 

nature. In truth, the real necessity for an atonement m 
Christ arises in the nature of God, especially in his 
justice, and gives place for only two legitimate theories 
— two alternatively, one of which must be the true 
theory. 

For illustration, we may apply these principles of 
classification and reduction to theories, popularly given 
as such, which are grounded simply in a need arising 
out of moral disabilities in us. The theories which we 
shall name in the illustration are in fact but different 
phases of the theory of Moral influence. 

One theory is, that Christ died as a martyr to his 
prophetic mission, and for the confirmation of the les- 
sons of moral and religious truth which he gave to the 
world. This is the Marturial theory. It assumes our 
ignorance and our need of higher spiritual truth, and 
offers us redemptive help in Christ only through the 
moral influence of the lessons of higher religious truth 
which he gave. 

In another view, the death of Christ fulfilled its 
chief office as subservient to his resurrection, that he 
might thereby more fully disclose and verify the re- 
ality of a future life. Such disclosure is for the sake 
of its helpful religious influence in the present life. 
Men are strongly propense to a mere secular life. 1'hey 
greatly need, therefore, the practical influence of a re- 
vealed future life. Such help Christ brings through hie 
resurrection, for which his death served as the pre- 
requisite. 

FTe died as an example of self-sacrificing devotion to 
the good of others. He so died that through the 



Preliminary Facts. 99 

moral force of so impressive a lesson we might be led 
into a life of disinterested benevolence. Man is selfish 
and needs such an example of self-sacrificing devotion 
to the good of others as Christ gives. Such are the 
facts which this view emphasizes. But all the redemp- 
tive help which it represents is in the practical force 
of a moral lesson. 

In another scheme the mission and work of Christ 
were for the manifestation of God as among men in 
an incarnation; that he might "show us the Father" 
in his sympathy and forgiving grace. Man lacks faith, 
is in doubt, is in a servile fear of God, and suffers the 
moral paralysis of such states of mind. He needs en- 
couragement, assurance of the kindness and love of 
God. This also is redemptive help only through the 
salutary influence of a moral lesson. 

Such, indeed, are all the popularly named theories 
which ground the need of a mediatorial economy merely 
in our own moral disabilities. If any exception should 
be made, it is in the case of the Realistic and Mystical 
schemes, in which, however, the chief difference is in 
the mode of redemptive help. But in all that class of 
which we have given examples, the need, revealed in 
many variant facts, is yet one; and the redemptive 
help, coming in various forms, is operative only in one 
mode. Man is ignorant, and needs higher religious 
Inith; of feeble motivity to duty, and needs its lessons 
in a more impressive form; of strong secular tendency, 
and needs the practical force of a revealed future life; 
selfish, and needs the helpful example of self-sacrificing 
love; in a servile fear of God, and needs the assurance 

LOfC. 



100 Theories of Atonement. 

of his fatherly kindness. So Christ comes in all these 
forms of needed help. But in the deeper sense the 
need is one, and the redemptive help is one. And 
these theories, many in popular enumeration, are all 
one theory — the theory of Moral influence. Its claims 
will be considered a little further on. For the pros 
ent it may be said, that no issue will be joined re- 
specting either such need in us or such help in Christ 
as here alleged. But such is not the real necessity 
for an atonement, and such is not the true atonement. 

Any further application of these principles, whereby 
we may test and classify the various interpretations of 
the redemptive mediation of Christ, will be made in 
connection with our review of theories. 

5. Only two Theories. — In a strict or scientific sense, 
there are but two theories of atonement. We have 
seen how many in popular enumeration are reducible 
to the one theory of Moral influence. Others, as will 
appear in this review, are so void of essential facts that 
they hold no rightful place as theories. Nor is the 
scheme of Moral influence in any strict sense a theory 
of atonement, because it neither answers to the real 
necessity in the case nor admits an objective ground of 
forgiveness in the mediation of Christ. 

Nor can there be more than two theories. This 
limitation is determined by the law of a necessary cor- 
relation between the necessity for an atonement, and 
the nature of the atonement as answering to that 
necessity. This fact we have, that the vicarious suf- 
ferings of Christ are an objective ground of the divine 
forgiveness. There is a necessity for such a ground; 



Summary Review. 101 

his sufferings are an atonement only as they answer to 
this necessity. Hence the nature of the atonement is 
determined by the nature of its necessity. Now this 
necessity must lie either in the requirement of an ab- 
solute justice which must punish sin, or in the rectoral 
office of justice as an obligation to conserve the interest 
of moral government. There can be no other neces- 
sity for an atonement as an objective ground of for- 
giveness,, Nor does any scheme of a real atonement 
in Christ either represent or imply another. Thus 
there is place for two theories, but only two. There is 
place for a theory of Absolute Substitution, according 
to which the redemptive sufferings of Christ were 
strictly penal, and the fulfillment of an absolute obli- 
gation of justice in the punishment of sin. This is 
the theory of Satisfaction, and answers to a necessity 
in the first sense given. There is also place for a theory 
of Conditional Substitution, according to which the 
redemptive sufferings of Christ were not the punish- 
ment of sin, but such a substitute for the rectoral of- 
fice of penalty as renders forgiveness, on proper con- 
ditions, consistent with the requirements of moral gov- 
ernment. This answers to a necessity in the second 
sense given, and accords with the deeper principles of 
the Governmental theory. The truth of atonement 
must be with the one or the other of these theories. 

II. 

Summary Review. 
Most of the schemes noticed in this section we call 
theories only after popular usage. They are not strict- 



j.02 Theories of Atonement. 

ly such. W hiie some have peculiar phases or eleuu nts, 
they are mostly based on the principles of the Moral 
theory. We shall attempt but a summary leview of 
them. It will suffice to notice their leading facts, to 
ascertain the nature of the redemption in Christ which 
they represent, and to determine their place in a proper 
classification. A few words may be added upon their 
respective claims. 

1. Theory of Vicarious Repentance. — We may so 
designate a scheme specially represented by Dr. John 
M'Leod Campbell. It is grounded in the idea of the 
profoundest identification of Christ with humanity in 
the incarnation. Therein he takes our experiences into 
his own consciousness; enters into the deepest sym- 
pathy with us, even in our sense of sin and of the di- 
vine displeasure. Thus he takes upon his own soul the 
burden and sorrow of our sins, and makes the truest, 
deepest confession of their demerit and of the just 
displeasure of God against them. Divine justice is 
therewith satisfied and we are forgiven. "This con- 
fession, as to its own nature, must have been a perfect 
A men in humanity to the judgment of God ontlte sin of 
many "He who so responds to the divine wrath 
against sin, saying, ' Thou art righteous, O Lord, who 
judgest so,' is necessarily receiving the full apprehen- 
sion and realization of that wrath, as well as of that 
*in against which it comes into his soul and spirit, into 
the bosom of the divine humanity, and, so receiving it, 
he responds to it with a perfect response — a response 
from the depths of that divine humanity — and in that 
perfect response he absorbs it. For that response has 



Summary Review. 103 

all the elements of a perfect repentance in humanity 
for all the sin of man; a perfect sorrow; a perfect con- 
trition; all the elements of such a repentance, and that in 
absolute perfection; all, except the personal conscious- 
ness of sin; and by that perfect response in Amen to 
the mind of God in relation to sin is the wrath of God 
lightly met, and that is accorded to divine justice which 
is its due and could alone satisfy it." l 

This scheme recognizes the demerit of sin and a 
retributive justice in God. It is a scheme of vicarious 
atonement, but in entire dissent from the theory of Sat- 
isfaction, as it denies even the possibility of penal sub- 
stitution. It clearly holds repentance to be all that 
justice requires as the ground of forgiveness. In this 
it dissents from both the Anselmic and Grotian theo- 
ries, and identifies itself with the Socinian. It admits 
no necessity for an objective atonement, either in an 
absolute penal justice or in the interest of moral gov- 
ernment. Any necessity for redemptive help which 
the scheme may consistently allow, must be grounded 
in an inability in us to a true repentance. If a vicari- 
ous repentance is sufficient for our forgiveness, so must 
be a true repentance in us. This fact also classes the 
scheme with the Moral theory* 

This special view is open to many objections. The 
Scriptures give it no support. It will not interpret 
the explicit terms of atonement, nor answer to the real 
aecessity for one. Nor is there less difficulty in the 
QOtion of a vicarious repentance than in that of vicari- 
ous punishment. Then the logical sequence of such a 

'Dr. Campbell: " The Nature of the Atonement," pp. 118, 119. 



104 Theories of Atonement. 

vicarious repentance, with its attributed effects, is the 
releasement of all from the requirement of repentance, 
and the unconditional forgiveness of all. 1 

2. Theory of Redemption by Love. — It is according 
to the Scripture? that our redemption has its original 
in the love of God. But this fact does not determine 
the nature of such redemption, nor whether it be an ob- 
jective ground of forgiveness originating in the divine 
love, or merely the moral influence of its manifesta- 
tion in Christ, operative as a subduing and reconciling 
power in the soul. Dr. Young is a special exponent 
of the latter view. There is really very little in his 
scheme peculiar to himself. This is specially true of 
its constituent facts. Any peculiarity lies rather in 
their combination and in the manner of their expres- 
sion. The author writes with perspicuity and force. 
His principles are clearly given. It is easy to deter- 
mine and classify his scheme. 

Certain facts are postulated respecting spiritual laws. 
Death is the necessary consequence of sin, as life is of 
holiness. The only salvation, therefore, is in the de- 
struction of sin as a subjective fact. This is the work 
of the redemption in Christ. " The laws of nature are 
owing solely to the will and fiat of the Creator. He 
ordained them, and had such been his pleasure they 
might have been altered in ten thousand ways. But 
the laws of the spiritual universe do not depend even 
on the highest will. The great God did not make 
them ; they are eternal as he is. The great God cannot 
repeal them ; they are immutable as he is." "Without 

1 Cave : " The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice," pp. 350-362. 



Summary Review. 105 

aid from any quarter they avenge themselves, a ad exact, 
and continue without fail to exact, so long as the evil 
remains, the amount of penalty — visible and invisible — 
to the veriest jot and tittle which the deed of violation 
deserves." "~No term of punishment is fixed, none can 
be fixed. One thing, and one thing only, determines 
the duration of the punishment, and that is the con- 
tinuance of evil in the soul. The evil continuing, its 
attendant penalty is a necessity, which even God could 
not conquer." "There is one, but there is only one, 
way in which the tremendous doom of the sinful soul 
can be escaped, in consistency with the great laws of 
the spiritual universe. If sin were cast out, the death 
which issues solely from sin would be effectually pre- 
vented." 1 

The theory of redemption is from facts so stated. 
There is no need of an objective ground of forgive- 
ness. The whole need is for a moral force working in 
the soul itself, and in a manner to destroy the power of 
subjective evil. All this is provided for in the mani- 
festation of the divine love in the sacrifice of the cross. 
Such is God's method of redemption. " By the one true 
sacrifice of Christ, an act of divine self-sacrifice by in- 
carnate, crucified love, he aims a blow at the root of 
evil within man's heart. . . . He breaks the hard heart 
by the overwhelming pressure of pure, almighty mercy, 
in our Lord Jesus Christ." a 

We specially object to the one-sided redemption so 
constructed. We fully accept the postulates respect- 

1 John Young, LL.D.: "The Life and Light of Men," pp. 82, 85, 93, 97. 
" Ibid., p. 98. 



106 Theories of Atonement. 

ing spiritual laws as involving an absolute distinction 
between holiness and sin; though we do not admit the 
extreme view of their self -execution, which might dis- 
pense with a moral government as under an actual 
divine administration. God ever rules in the moral 
realm, and dispenses rewards to both holiness and sin. 
The necessity of a deliverance from sin as a subjective 
evil in order to salvation, we have already affirmed. 
Indeed, it is a very familiar truth. And that the divine 
love revealed in the sacrifice of the cross has a great 
office in our moral reformation is also a very familiar 
truth. It ever finds utterance in Christian exhortation 
and entreaty to a new spiritual life. And it is an af- 
fected or mistaken originality when men give promi 
nence to such truths as original discoveries. 

In principle the scheme is one with the theory of 
Moral influence. The atonement is all in a power of 
moral motive as embodied in manifested love, and op- 
erative only through the soul's own cognition and mo- 
tivity. Like every such scheme, it utterly fails to 
answer to the real need of an atonement as revealed in 
the Scriptures and manifest in the reason of the case. 
It has no fair interpretation for the many Scripture 
texts which so directly attribute forgiveness to tb^ 
redemption in the blood of Christ; nor does it give 
any proper recognition to the mission of the Spirit 
through his mediation as the efficient agency in out 
subjective redemption from sin. 

3. Self -propitiation in Self-sacrifice. — We may so for- 
mulate the last theory of Dr. Bushnell. In his own 
account it supplements rather than supersedes his for- 



Summary Review. 107 

mer theory: " The argument of my former treatise 1 was 
concerned in exhibiting the work of Christ as a recon- 
ciling power in men. This was conceived to be the 
whole import and effect of it. ... I now propose to 
substitute for the latter half of my former treatise a 
different exposition; composing thus a whole of doc- 
trine that comprises both the reconciliation of men to 
God and of God to men." a He still holds the position 
that the main office of atonement is in its moral influ- 
ence with men. Now, however, he finds an element in 
the divine propitiation; but it is not one that identifies 
his scheme with either the Anselmic or Grotian atone- 
ment. 

The new theory alleges a similarity of moral senti- 
ment in God and men; and then, from an alleged requi- 
site to a thorough human forgiveness, deduces a law of 
the divine forgiveness. We have retributive senti- 
ments, disgust, and resentment against the turpitude and 
wrong of sin. It is admitted that these feelings have 
an important function in moral discipline, and that they 
must be treated in subservience to that end. " Filling 
an office so important, they must not be extirpated un- 
der any pretext of forgiveness. They require to be 
somehow mastered, and somehow to remain. And 
the supreme art of forgiveness will consist in find 
ing how to embrace the unworthy as if they were not 
unworthy, or how to have them still on hand when 
they will not suffer the forgiveness to pass. Which 
supreme art is the way of propitiation — always con- 

1 " The Vicarious Sacrifice." 

9 Dr. Buslmell: " Forgiveness and Law," p. 33. 



108 Theories of Atonement. 

cerned in the reconciliation of moral natures separ« 
ated by injuries." ' 

What, then, is the mode of this supreme art of rec- 
onciliation ? What is the essential requisite to its real- 
ization in a free and full forgiveness ? The requirement 
is from the nature of the hinderance to the forgiveness 
in our moral resentments against sin; and hence for 
some measure of self-propitiation which will master 
these resentments, and issue in a thorough forgiveness. 
How, then, may this self-propitiation be realized ? By 
some manner of self-sacrifice for the good of those 
against whom we have such resentments. " Suffering, 
in short, is with all moral natures the necessary corre- 
late of forgiveness. The man, that is, cannot say, * I 
forgive,' and have the saying end it; he must somehow 
atone both himself and his enemy by a painstaking, 
rightly so-called, that has power to recast the terms of 
their relationship." a Such is the requisite to forgive- 
ness ; some personal sacrifice for the good of the of- 
fender, and not only as a power of moral influence with 
him but also as a necessary self-propitiation toward 
him in the party offended. Such is the law of human 
forgiveness. 

Then this same law is applied to the divine forgive- 
ness. It is so applied on the ground of a " grand anal- 
ogy, or almost identity, that subsists between our moral 
nature and that of God; so that our pathologies and 
those of God make faithful answer to each other, and 
he is brought so close to us that almost any thing that 
occurs in the workings or exigencies of our moral in- 
Dr. Bushnell : " Forgiveness and Law," p. 38. a Ibid., pp. 48, 49 



Summary Review. 109 

stincts may even be expected in his." ! It is hence con- 
cluded that God has such hinderance to forgiveness in 
his moral resentments against sin as we have, and, there- 
fore, requires the same measure of self-propitiation. 
He forgives just as we do. " One kind of forgiveness 
matches and interprets the other, for they have a com- 
mon property. They come to the same point when they 
are genuine, and require also exactly the same prepara- 
tions and conditions precedent." 2 So God must pro- 
pitiate himself to forgiveness in cost and suffering for 
our good. This he did in the sacrifice of the cross. 
Therein we behold " that sublime act of cost, in which 
God has bent himself downward, in loss and sorrow, 
over the hard face of sin, to say, and saying to make 
good, ' Thy sins are forgiven thee.' " 8 

Many of these facts might be admitted without ac- 
cepting the doctrine of atonement thereon constructed. 
The retributive sentiment is with us an original fact, 
and in its own nature a hinderance to forgiveness. 
There are resentments against injury and wrong which 
may strengthen the hinderance. But this law is with- 
out uniformity. The retributive feeling rarely exists 
alone. It is usually in association with other feelings 
which may either greatly hinder or greatly help any 
disposition to forgiveness. In a cruel, hard nature the 
associated feelings may co-operate with the retributive 
sentiment to prevent all disposition to forgiveness, and 
equally to prevent all acts of personal kindness which 
might placate the vindictive resentment; while the 

1 Dr. Bushnell: " Forgivei? jss and Law," p. 35. 

2 Ibid., p. 35. 8 Ibid., p. 73. 
S 



110 Theories op Atonement. 

tendencies of a generous, kindly nature may be helpful 
to a forgiving disposition. There are gracious, loving 
natures, ever ready with a full forgiveness without any 
self-atonement in charities to the offender going before. 
The more is this true as the soul is the more deeply 
imbued with the divine love. 

Now the multiformity and contrariety of such facts 
in men deny to Dr. Bushnell the analogy from which 
he concludes the necessary means of the divine propi- 
tiation and forgiveness. Self -propitiation in a sacri- 
ficing charity to the offender is not "with all moral 
natures the necessary correlate of forgiveness." And 
with error in the premise, the conclusion is fallacious. 
But were it even true that this is the only law of for- 
giveness with men, it would not hence follow that such 
is the only law of forgiveness with God. 

It should be distinctly noted that here we have no 
concern with any requirement of divine justice as main- 
tained either in the Satisfaction theory or in the Rec- 
toral. Dr. Bushnell rejects both, with all that is vital 
in them. Nor does he admit any necessity for an 
atonement on the ground of either. In his scheme the 
necessity lies in a personal disposition of God as a re- 
sentment against the injury and wrong of sin. 

It is not in the interest of our criticism upon this 
view to deny all hinderance in the divine resentment 
against sin to a propitious disposition ; but we confi- 
dently affirm such a transcendent love in God as would, 
in the absence of all other hinderance, wait for no 
placation of his personal wrath in self-sacrifice, but 
instantly go forth to the satisfaction of its yearnings 



Summary Review. Ill 

m the freest, fullest forgiveness. If men imbued 
with the divine love will so forgive, much more would 
the infinite love. The position has the highest a forti- 
ori proof. That divine love which finds its way to 
forgiveness through the blood of the cross, would suf- 
fer no delay by any personal resentment against sin 
requiring placation in costly ministries to the offender, 
The grace of redemption in the blood of Christ is in- 
finitely greater than the grace of forgiveness. Hence 
the free gift of the former in the very state of personal 
resentment alleged, denies the assumed hinderance 
therein to the freest, fullest forgiveness. 1 

This scheme, therefore, does not answer to the real 
necessity for the redemptive mediation of Christ. Nor 
does it rightly interpret the office of his sacrifice. The 
necessity concerns the profoundest interest of moral 
government, and hence arises in the very perfections of 
God as moral ruler, not in his personal resentment 
against sin. And the sacrifice of Christ answers to this 
necessity in atonement for sin, by rendering forgiveness 
consistent with the interest concerned. 

Such a scheme is far deeper and grander than Dr. 
Bushnell's. Indeed, his is neither profound nor grand. 
It admits no principle or interest as concerned in for- 
giveness, the disregard of which would be as contrary 
to the divine goodness as to the divine justice. In the 
analogy of certain "pathologies," of personal resent 
ment against sin, the scheme lowers God into the like- 
ness of men ; so that in him, as in them, the great hin- 
derance to forgiveness is in these same personal resent- 
1 Rom. 5 : 10 ; 8:32. 



112 Theories of Atonement. 

ments. Thus "one kind of forgiveness matches and 
interprets the other, for they have a common property. 
They come to the same point when they are genuine, 
and require also the same preparations and conditions 
precedent." The scheme commands no lofty view of 
the divine goodness. Nor can it give any proper sig- 
nificance to the sacred proclamation of the divine love 
as the original of the redemptive economy. Such a 
love is held in no bonds of personal resentment. The 
scheme has no profound and glorious doctrine of divine 
love ; and, indeed, is found on a true sounding to be 
shallow. 

Its scientific position is easily given. As compared 
with the Moral theory, it has a somewhat differencing 
element, which carries the atonement into the reconcil- 
iation of God. But this element is insufficient to con- 
stitute a really distinct theory. Negatively, and there- 
fore fatally, it is one with the Moral theory. It equally 
denies all hinderance to forgiveness in the divine jus- 
tice, whether in its purely retributive function or in its 
rectoral office. This fact thoroughly differentiates it 
from both the Satisfaction and Governmental theories, 
and closely affiliates it with the Moral scheme. 

4. Realistic Theory.— Closely kindred to this is the 
Mystical theory, next to be noticed. Each is multi- 
form, and the two often coalesce. These facts, with a 
lack of explicit and definitive statement, render it dif- 
ficult either to apprehend them or to present them in a 
clear view. 

In the Realistic theory some represent Christ as the 
Typical or ideal man, using these terms vaguely, but 



Summary Review. 113 

with the assumption of some manner of relationship 
between him and us, whereby we are the recipients of 
a redemptive influence working for our moral renova- 
tion and salvation. Others carry the conception of 
Christ into the notion of a generic humanity, of which 
we are individuated forms. The notion must answer 
somewhat to the Scholastic realism, or to the higher 
Augustinian anthropology, which identifies the human 
race in a real oneness with Adam. We may instance 
such a type as represented by Dr. Baird,** especially 
that by Dr. Shedd. 2 But all such realism is utterly 
groundless, and the sheerest assumption. 

Nor did the incarnation bring Christ into any real- 
istic connection with human nature which is in itself 
redeeming and saving. It did bring him into union 
with human nature, but into a thoroughly individuated 
form — as much so as that of any individual man. So 
far from such a realistic identification, he stands apart 
from all human nature, except the one individuated 
form of his incarnation. Hence that incarnation had 
not in itself the efficiency of redemption, but was in 
order to an atonement in the death of Christ, that he 
might come to us severally in the grace of forgive- 
ness, and in the regenerating agency of the Holy Spirit. 3 
Such is the Scripture doctrine of atonement and salva- 
tion, but which no Realism represents. 4 

1 " The Elohim Revealed," pp. 133, 428, 496, 507. 

'"Discourses and Essays," pp. 259-261; "History of Christiaii 
Doctrine," vol. ii, pp. 7 7-80. 

»Gal. 4: 4, 5 ; Heb. 2: 14, 15. 

4 Dr. Rigg: "Modern Anglican Theology," pp. 130-140; Prof 
Crawford: "The Scripture Doctrine of Atonement," pp. 303-318. 



114 Theories of Atonement. 

5. Mystical Theory.— This theory, as previously 
stated, is, at least in some of its facts, closely kindred 
to the Realistic. It is chiefly based in the idea of a real 
union of Christ with the human soul. In this personal 
union is realized his redeeming and saving efliciency. 
So far the theory finds salvation in a subjective sancti- 
tication, and makes little account of justification in the 
forgiveness of sin. Hence it makes slight account of 
an objective reconciliation in the death of Christ, in 
comparison of his subjective work of redemption. The 
weighty objection to this view is, that it gives us a one- 
sided soteriology. It offers the benefits of an objective 
atonement without the atonement itself. 

There is in our salvation a living union with Christ. 1 
This is a truth of all evangelical theology. But in the 
order of nature forgiveness must precede this spiritual 
union. So the atonement in the blood of Christ as the 
only ground of forgiveness is a distinct fact from his 
saving union with us. Strictly, the Mystical scheme 
omits the atonement proper, and belongs to another part 
of soteriology. 8 

6. Middle T/teory. — The same theory is also called the 
Arian — not, however, as originating with Arius, but 
because of an intimate association with an Arian Chris- 
tology. It holds that forgiveness is granted to repent- 
ing sinners for Christ's sake, or in view of his mediato- 
rial service. This is not a forgiveness on the ground of 
his death as a vicarious atonement for sin, but in re- 

'John 15: 5, 6; Rom. 8: 10; Col. 3: 3, 4. 

•Dr. Hodge: "Systematic Theology," vol. 2, pp. 581-588; Prof. 
Bruce: "The Humiliation of Christ," pp. 342-351. 



Summary Review. 115 

ward of his self -sacrificing service in the interest of the 
human race. Higher ground is thus taken than in the 
Moral scheme. The mediation of Christ has a higher 
office than a mere practical lesson: '.'Not only to give 
us an example; not only to assure us of remission, or 
to procure our Lord a commission to publish the for- 
giveness of sin; but, moreover, to obtain that forgive- 
ness by doing what God in his wisdom and goodness 
judged fit and expedient to be done in order to the for- 
giveness of sin; and without which he did not think it 
fit or expedient to grant the forgiveness of sin." * 

Yet, with all these facts, the scheme denies a proper 
substitutional atonement, and hence is unscriptural. It 
is in very thorough dissent from the theory of Satisfac- 
tion. In the maintenance of a fitness, or wise expedi- 
ency, in the mediation of Christ as the reason of forgive- 
ness, especially in its relation to the interest of moral 
government, it makes some approach toward the Rec- 
toral view, but in the full exposition falls far short of 
it. In some features it reminds one of the theory of 
Anselm, though the two are far from being identical. 

Dr. Hill reviews the theory in a clear analysis and 
statement, deriving his information of it from Dr. 
Thomas Balguy, Dr. Price, and others. 2 The treat- 
ment is with the characteristic fairness and perspicuity 
of the author. After a lucid statement of the scheme 
he notes its very serious defects, but at the same time 
regards it as a well-wrought and beautiful structure. 8 

1 Dr. John Taylor: " Scripture Doctrine of Atonement," No. 152. 

8 "Lectures in Divinity," pp. 422-421. 

8 Dr. Buchanan: "The Doctrine of Justification," pp. 165-168. 



116 Theories of Atonement. 

7. Conditional Penal Substitution. — We do not here 
appropriate any given formula of atonement, but use 
terms Avhich properly designate a theory held by not a 
few. The view is, that the redemptive sufferings of 
Christ were penally endured in behalf of sinners; that 
as such they constitute a proper ground of forgiveness; 
but that the forgiveness is really conditional, as contin- 
gent ipon the free action of the redeemed. There is 
present the idea of a necessary retribution of sin, or of 
a vicarious punishment in order to forgiveness. Or, if 
there be sin, there must also be punishment: this is the 
radical idea. Yet the reason of this necessity, and the 
relation of penal substitution to forgiveness, are not giv- 
en with any exactness, as in the scheme of Satisfaction. 

The penal substitution is conditional, in the sense that 
the forgiveness provided is contingent upon the free 
action of sinners respecting the required conditions. 
They are free to repent and believe, and equally free 
not to repent and believe. In the former case they are 
free through enabling grace; in the latter, as not sub- 
ject to an irresistible power of grace. On a proper re- 
pentance and faith they are forgiven on the ground of 
Christ's vicarious punishment; but on the refusal of 
such terms they are answerable in penalty for then- sins, 
and none the less on account of his penal substitution. 

The scheme is a construction apparently between the 
Satisfaction and Governmental theories. It rejects the 
absolute substitution of the former, and adds the penal 
element to the proper conditional substitution of the 
latter. 

Such, in substance, is the theory of all who hold both 



Summary Review. 117 

the penal quality of the redemptive suff erings of Christ 
and a real conditionally of forgiveness. Hence, we 
were entirely correct in representing it as the theory 
of not a few. Many leading Arminians may be classed 
in such a scheme; though we think it for them an un- 
scientific position. Arminius himself maintained both 
penal substitution and a real conditionality of forgive- 
ness. 1 Grotius held both, though with far less explicit- 
ness respecting the former. Some of Richard Watson's 
statements would assign to him the same position. It 
is the theory maintained in the more recent and very 
able work of Marshall Randies. 2 

Is there room for such a scheme ? There is a broad 
ground of distinction between the Satisfaction and 
Governmental theories. But such a difference is not 
always room for another. Two theories may so appro- 
priate all possible facts and principles of the question, 
that the truth in the case must be with one or the other. 
Such are the facts respecting these two theories of 
atonement. Nor can a penal substitution be con- 
ditional. 

Penalty, as an instrument of justice, has only two 
offices: one in the punishment of sin as such, the other, 
in the interest of the government. And though pun- 
ishment is only for the sake of its rectoral end, it is 
none the less strictly retributive, or inflicted only on the 
ground of demerit. There is no other just punishment. 
Nor could any other fulfill its rectoral office. Then if 
the punisnment be inflicted upon a substitute, the sub- 

1 "Writings, (Nichols',) vols, i, pp. 28, 29 ; ii, pp. 496-499. 
' " Substitution ; Atonement" 



118 Theories of Atonement. 

stitution must, in the nature of the case, be real and ab- 
solute. Justice can have no further retributive claim 
against the sinners so substituted; not any more than if 
they had suffered in themselves the full punishment of 
their sins. Here the consistency of the case is with the 
doctrine of Satisfaction. All so replaced by a substitute 
in punishment must be discharged from personal ame- 
nability to penalty. Hence a real conditionality of for- 
giveness has no consistency with penal substitution. 

We are fully aware that rigid Satisfactionists assert 
the conditionality of forgiveness. This, however, does 
not void the intrinsic inconsistency in the case. Nor is 
what they assert a real conditionality; certainly not 
such as Arminianism ever maintains. For instance, 
faith is with them the condition of forgiveness; but they 
really deny the contingency of faith. In their scheme, 
it is conditional only as precedent to forgiveness in a 
necessary order of facts in the process of salvation. It 
takes its place as a purchased benefit of redemption in 
the process of salvation monergistically wrought. Irre- 
sistible grace is efficient cause to the faith, as to every 
fact in the actual salvation. Christ would be wronged 
of his purchase were it not so wrought in every re- 
deemed soul. Here, indeed, is the real consistency with 
Satisfactionists. But with all who hold a conditional 
penal substitution, especially with all Arminians, for- 
giveness has a real conditionality. Here, indeed, is a 
main issue between Calvinism and Arminianism in an 
unended polemics of centuries. It is the historic issue 
of monergism and synergism. The latter, with its full 
meaning of conditionality in forgiveness and salvation, 



Summary Review. 119 

is ever the unyielding and unwavering position of 
Arminianism. 

The question recurs respecting the consistency of such 
a conditionality with penal substitution; or whether 
there can be a conditional penal substitution. Nothing 
is gained by asserting simply the penal character of 
Christ's redemptive sufferings, with the omission of 
their strictly substitutive office. In such a view it 
would be impossible to show any just ground or proper 
end of the punishment. Sin is the only ground of just 
and wise punishment. Penal substitution must never 
depart from this principle. If Christ suffered punish- 
ment, our sin must have been the ground of his punish- 
ment. And our sin must have suffered merited pun- 
ishment in him. This, and only this, would answer to 
the idea of a necessity for punishment in the case of 
sin — a necessity arising in the relation of sin to a pure- 
ly retributive justice. There could be no pretense, 
even, to such a punishment, except as our sins were im- 
puted to Christ, and so made punishable in him. But in 
such a case the penal substitution is real and absolute: 
sin suffers its merited punishment: absolute justice 
receives its full retributive claim. No further penalty 
can fall either upon Christ or upon the sinners replaced 
in his penal substitution; and no more upon them than 
upon him. Their discharge is a requirement of justice 
itself. Hence there cannot be a conditional penal 
substitution. 

8. Three Leading Theories. — We here name together 
the Moral, Satisfaction, and Governmental theories as 
the three leading ones. But we name them simply 



120 Theobies of Atonement. 

with a view to the indication of their general character 
as prefatory to their more formal discussion. 

It is important that formulas of doctrine should con- 
sist of thoroughly definitive terms. This is not always 
an easy attainment. There is no such attainment iE 
these formulas of atonement. Neither gives what is 
cardinal in the theory which it represents, nor clearly 
discriminates it from the others; and it is only in their 
discussion that we shall ascertain their respective prin- 
ciples and distinctive facts. Their general sense may 
be very briefly given. 

The Moral theory regards the redemptive work of 
Christ as accomplished through his example and les- 
sons of religious truth, operative as a practical influ- 
ence with men. It is the narrowest and most exclusive 
of the deeper truths of soteriology. 

The theory of Satisfaction makes fundamental the 
satisfaction of an absolute retributive justice by the 
punishment of sin in Christ as the substitute of sinners 
in penalty. It admits the offices of atonement repre- 
sented by the other two theories, but as incidental. 

The Governmental theory gives chief prominence to 
the office of justice in the interest of moral govern- 
ment, yet holds to a proper sense of satisfaction, and 
gives full place to the principle of moral influence, not, 
however, as a constituent fact of atonement, but as a 
practical result of the redemptive economy. 1 

1 Rev. Daniel T. Fisk, D.D. : " The Necessity of the A tenement," 
"Bibliotheca Sacra," April, 1861. The article of Dr. Fisk presents 
these three theories in a very clear view. It maintains the Govern- 
mental theory. 



Facts of the Theory. 121 



CHAPTER VI. 

THEORY OF MORAL INFLUENCE. 

rnillS theory has already come into view, and more 
than once. It is one of the three which we pro 
pose to treat more fully than those previously noticed 
We do not concede to it a scientific position. Strictly 
it is not a theory of atonement ; yet it is such in popu 
lar enumeration and usage, and one of no little promi 
nence. It will, however, require no great elaboration, as 
we already have its principles; and especially as the 
theory is one of great simplicity and clearness. With 
all its phases, its fundamental principle is ever one, 
and easily apprehended. 

I. 

Facts of the Theory. 

1. The Redemptive Lav). — The mediation of Christ 
fulfills its redemptive office in the economy of human 
salvation through the influence of its own lessons and 
motives, as practically operative upon the soul and life 
of men. Such is the office of his incarnation, if admit- 
ted; of hie example, teachings, miracles, sufferings, 
death, resurrection, ascension. By the lessons of truth 
so given and enforced it is sought to enlighten men ; 
to address to them higher motives to a good life ; to 
awaken love in grateful response to the consecration of 
so worthy a life to their good ; to lead them to repent- 



122 Theory of Moral Influence. 

ance and piety through the moral force of such a man- 
ifestation of the love of God; to furnish them a perfect 
example in the life of Christ, and through his personal 
influence to transform them into his likeness. 1 

Advocates may vary the summary of facts, as they 
may differ respecting the Christ, but the result is sim- 
ply to lessen or increase the possible moral force without 
any change of principle. The law of redemptive help 
is ever one, whether Christ be essentially divine or only 
human. With his divinity and incarnation the synthe- 
sis of facts may embody the larger force of religious 
motive ; but this is all the advantage from the higher 
Christology. Such is the moral theory of redemption. 
Dr. Bushnell calls it "the moral power view;" but 
such a formula neither alters the redemptive law nor 
adds to its saving efficiency. The only advantage is in 
a little more force of expression. 

2. Socinian. — Historically, the theory synchronizes 
with Socinus, deceased 1604, and, in the stricter sense, 
originated with him. Hence it may properly be called 
Socinian. Abelard, following soon after Anselm, pro- 
pounded similar views, which were favored somewhat 
by Peter Lombard and others, but gave no exact con- 
struction tc a new theory in opposition tc the more 
prevalent Church doctrine. He exerted but a transient 
disturbing influence upon this great question, and left 
the Anselmic doctrine in its chief position. 5 

1 Prof. Bruce: " The Humiliation of Christ," pp. 326-328. 
Dr. Shedd: " History of Christian Doctrine," vol. h, pp. 286-288; 
Dr. Cunningham: "Historical Theology," vol. ii, pp. 294-301; Dr. 
Hill: " Lectures in Divinity," pp. 414-422. 



Facts of the Theory. 123 

With Socinus the Moral theory sprang naturally from 
his system of theology, especially from his Ohristology. 
In the assertion of Christ's simple humanity, doctrinal 
consistency required him to reject all schemes of a real 
objective atonement, and to interpret the mediation of 
Christ in accord with his own Christology. The Moral 
theory is the proper result. It is the scheme which 
his system of theology required, and the only one 
which it will consistently admit. Affiliated forms of 
Christianity — such as Unitarianism and Universalism — 
naturally and consistently adopt the same theory. It 
has a natural affinity with all forms of Rationalistic 
Christianity. 

3. Its Dialectics.— -The Moral scheme, arising in a sys- 
tem of theology so diverse from the Orthodox faith, 
and so antagonistic itself to the Orthodox atonement, 
was inevitably polemic, and both defensively and of- 
fensively, in its methods. This naturally arose, in the 
first part, from the fact that the Scriptures, in what 
seems their obvious sense, positively affirm an objective 
atonement in Christ; and in the second part, from the 
fact that the doctrine of atonement then most prevalent 
was open to serious valid objections, and especially to 
very plausible ones. 

But little attempt was made to build up the new doc- 
trine on direct Scripture proofs. The main attempt 
was to set aside the Scripture proofs alleged in support 
of the Church doctrine. In this endeavor the new exe- 
gesis had little regard for well-established laws of her- 
meneutics. It dealt freely in captious criticism, and in 
the most gratuitous and forced interpretation. The 



124 Theory of Moral Influence. 

exigency of the case required such a method. Script- 
are facts and utterances are so clear and emphatic in 
the affirmation of an objective atonement in the media- 
tion of Christ as the only and necessary ground of for- 
giveness, that the new scheme found in such a method 
its only possible defense against their crushing force. 
We have no occasion to follow the scheme in all thia 
exegesis. The truth of an atonement has no such exi- 
gency ; and the round of following would be a long 
and weary one : for ihe whole issue concerns other 
great questions of doctrine, especially of anthropology 
and Christology, as well as the direct question of atone- 
ment. These great truths are vitally related to each 
other. 

Within the sphere of reason the new scheme was bold- 
ly offensive in its method. Here it had more apparent 
strength, and could be plausible even when not really 
potent. But any real strength bore rather against a 
particular form of redemptive doctrine than against 
the truth itself. The array of objections, wrought in 
all the vigor of rhetoric and passion, is nugatory against 
the true doctrine — as will appear in our treatment of 
objections. Nor are we answerable in the case of such 
as are valid against a doctrine which we do not accept, 
although brought from a theological stand-point which 
we utterly reject. The scheme of Satisfaction, as con 
str acted in the Reformed theology, and now held as the 
more common Calvinistic view, is open to such objec- 
tion. And an objection is none the less valid because 
made in the interest of a scheme much further from the 
truth than the one against which it is alleged. 



Facts of the Theoby. 125 

Beyond the ground of valid objection to the doc- 
trine of Satisfaction, Socinianism finds a sphere of 
plausible objection to the atonement itself. A fluency 
of words, even with little wealth or potency of thought, 
will easily declaim against its unreason, its injustice, 
its aspersion of the divine goodness, its implication 
of vindictiveness in God, its subversion of moral dis- 
tinctions and obligations. Very gifted minds have 
given to such declamation all possible force. It has 
the force of plausibility on false assumptions and issues, 
but is impotent in the light of truth. This will ap- 
pear in our treatment of objections to the atonement. 

4. Truth of Moral Influence. — The real issue with 
the Socinian scheme does not concern the truth of a 
helpful moral influence in the economy of redemption. 
This any true doctrine of atonement must fully hold. 
The issue is against making such influence the only 
form and the sum of redemptive help; indeed, against 
making it a constituent fact of the atonement as such. 

The moral influence of the mediation of Christ is 
from its own nature and facts, and not a part or fact 
of the atonement itself. If, in the case of a rebellion, 
a son of the sovereign should, at a great sacrifice, in- 
terpose in such provisional measures as would render 
forgiveness on proper submission consistent with the 
interest of the sovereignty; if the sovereign should be 
concurring with the son in such provision; and if such 
grace on the part of both the sovereign and the son 
should be successfully pleaded with those in rebellion 
as a reason for submission and loyalty, it would surely 

be unreason to maintain that such moral influence was 
9 



126 Theory of Moral Influence. 

the whole atonement in the case. It would be unrea- 
son to maintain that it was any part of it. It would 
be equally so with the submission so induced as a 
necessary condition of forgiveness. The moral influ- 
ence in the case presupposes the atonement, and arises 
out of the grace of its provisions. Without such grace 
there can be no appeals of moral potency. The very 
pleas which give persuasive force to the pleading are 
facts of grace in an atonement previously made. Hence 
the practical force or moral influence of a provision of 
forgiveness cannot be that provision itself nor any part 
of it. 

Such are the facts respecting the atonement in 
Christ. Its power of moral influence lies in the infi- 
nite truth and grace revealed in its provisions. The 
Son of God, as the gift of the Father, died in atone- 
ment for our sins, that we might be forgiven and 
saved. Here is the plea of moral potency. But there 
can be no such plea, and, therefore, no such moral 
influence, without the previous fact of such an atone- 
ment. Hence the unreason of accounting the practical 
lesson, or moral influence of an atonement, the atone- 
ment itself, or any constituent part of it. 

Thus the question of a helpful practical lesson in the 
economy of redemption is not one respecting its reality, 
but one respecting its place. The doctrine of a real 
atonement for sin gives the fullest recognition to such 
a moral influence, and represents its greatest possible 
force. Indeed, such an influence is the very life and 
power of all evangelistic work. And the real moral 
power of the cross is with the Churches to which it is a 



Facts of the Theory. 127 

real atonement for sin. Through all the Christian cent- 
uries such an atonement has been the persuasive power 
of the Gospel. It is the living impulsion of all the 
great evangelistic enterprises of to-day. And, as the 
history of the past throws its light upon the future, the 
persuasive power of the Gospel in winning the coming 
generations to Christ must be in the moral pathos of a 
real atonement in his blood. 

Such a doctrine of atonement embodies a power 
of persuasion infinitely greater than is possible to any 
scheme of redemptive help grounded in a Socinian 
Christology. In the one case, we have a divine Media- 
tor; in the other, a human mediator: in the one, a real 
atonement for sin; in the other, no atonement for sin. 
In the former, the divinity of Christ, his divine Sonship, 
his incarnation, the profoundness of his humiliation, 
the depth of his suffering and shame of his cross — all 
go into the atonement, and combine in a revelation of 
the divine holiness and love which embodies the high- 
est potency of moral influence. And we are pleased to 
quote and adopt a very forceful expression of the mar- 
velous moral power of the cross from one who himself 
denied an objective atonement for sin in the death of 
Christ, but was able to give such expression, because he 
accepted all the divine verities respecting Christ upon 
which a true doctrine is constructed: — 

" This is the unscrutable mystery of incarnate love ! 
the hidden spring of that moral power over the human 
heart, which, in myriads of instances, has proved irre- 
sistible. On the one hand, God in Christ — in Christ in 
his life, in Christ on the cross — is reconciling men to 



128 Theory of Moral Influence. 

himself, and employing his mightiest instrument for re- 
covering, gaining back, redeeming the world. On the 
other hand, Christ — Christ in his life, Christ on the 
cross — is God impersonated, so far as a human medium 
and method of impersonation could reach. Christ is 
the nature of God, brought near and unveiled to human 
eyes. Christ is the heart of God laid open, that men 
might almost hear the beat of its unutterable throb- 
bings, might almost feel the rush of its mighty pulsa- 
tions. The Incarnate in his life and in his death, in his 
words and in his deeds, in his whole character, and spir- 
it, and work on earth, was ever unveiling the Father, 
and making a path for the Father into the human 
soul. But on the cross Christ presses into the very 
center of the world's heart, takes possession of it, and 
there, in that center, preaches, as nowhere else was 
possible, the gospel of God's love ! " l 

II. 

Its Refutation. 
No elaborate polemics is required here. We already 
have the facts for the refutation of this theory. These 
facts are of two classes: one respecting the reality of 
an atonement in Christ, as the objective ground of for- 
giveness and salvation; the other, respecting the ne- 
cessity for such an atonement. The former we have 
verified by the Scriptures; the latter, by both the 
Scriptures and the reason of the case. The theory of 
Moral influence, denying, as it does, the divine relation 
and office of atonement as the ground of forgiveness, 
1 Dr. Young: " The Life and Light of Men," pp. 40, 41. 



Its Refutation. 129 

and limiting the saving work of Christ to the office of a 
practical lesson of piety, has a most thorough refutation 
in these facts. We refer to them as previously given. 1 

This reference might here suffice; yet it is proper to 
bring this theory face to face with the facts and truths 
whereby it has its refutation. But we do not need a 
formal array of all as previously maintained. Nor need 
they be presented just in the order then observed. 
The theory is disproved — 

1. By the Fact of an Atonement. — The fact of an 
objective atonement in Christ is dependent upon the 
Scriptures for its revelation and proof. Even the con- 
ception of a scheme so stupendous in its character never 
could originate in any finite mind. The idea includes 
not only the fact of a vicarious sacrifice of Christ in 
our redemption, but also the vitally related truths of 
his divinity and incarnation. It includes, also, by nec- 
essary implication, the very truth of the divine trinity, 
and of the unity of personality in Christ as the God- 
man. Such truths are from above, as the redeeming 
Lord is, and spoken only from heaven. And as the 
Redeemer himself can be known only by revelation, so 
the full purpose of his mission in the incarnation, and 
the nature of his redeeming work, can be known only 
by revelation. But the great truths so given, and tak 
ing their place in vital relation to the saving work of 
Christ — truths of his divinity, incarnation, personality, 
as the God-man — clearly reveal an infinitely prof ounder 
purpose in his suffering and death than is fulfilled in 
the office of a moral lesson. And Socinianism, in all ite 
1 Chapters ii, iiL 



130 Theory of Moral Influence. 

phases, consistently rejects these divine truths in a sy8« 
tern of theology which maintains the Moral theory of 
atonement. But their rejection is not their disproof. 
And their truth, as given in all the clearness and author- 
ity of revelation, is conclusive against this theory. 

Then we have the fact of an atonement, not only as 
the logical implication of great truths so vitally con- 
nected with it, but also in such facts and terms of 
Scripture as clearly contain and directly assert it. 

We have the Gospel as a message of forgiveness and 
salvation. Such blessings are proclaimed in Christ, 
and in him only. They are specially offered through 
his sufferings and death. Here is the fact of an atone- 
ment. 

In the more specific terms, Christ, in his sufferings 
and death, in his very blood, is our reconciliation, our 
propitiation, our redemption. He is such for us as sin- 
ners, and as the ground of our forgiveness. These are 
vital facts in the economy of redemption, and the very 
source of its practical lesson. And how one-sided ! — 
indeed, how no-sided! — the scheme which accounts the 
lesson all, and rejects the atonement out of which it 
arises ! The theory of Moral influence renders no sat- 
isfactory account of these terms. It is powerless for 
their consistent interpretation. It is, therefore, a false 
theory. No doctrine of atonement can be true which 
will not fairly interpret the terms of Scripture in which 
it is expressed. 

In other terms, Christ is set forth in his death as a 
sacrifice for sin, and one to be interpreted in the light of 
the typical sacrifices appertaining to earlier economies 



Its Refutation. 131 

of religion; in his high-priestly office offering up himself 
as a sacrifice for sin; in his high-priestly office in heav- 
en, into which he enters with his own blood, making 
intercession for us. These are facts of a real atonement 
in Christ, and conclusive against the Moral theory. 

2. By its Necessity. — The necessity of an atonement 
in the blood of Christ as the ground of forgiveness is a 
truth of the Scriptures. Thus it behooved Christ to 
suffer and die, that repentance and remission of sins 
might be preached in his name. 1 There is salvation in 
no other. 2 If righteousness, or forgiveness, were by the 
law, Christ is dead in vain. 8 If righteousness, or for- 
giveness, were possible by any law given, then life 
would be by the law. 4 The same necessity for an 
atonement in Christ is affirmed by the requirement and 
necessity of faith in him as the condition of salvation. 
What will the Moral scheme do with such facts ? How 
will it interpret such texts ? It has no power fairly to 
dispose of them, or to interpret them consistently with 
its own principles. It has, therefore, no claim to rec- 
ognition as a true theory of atonement. 

And how will the Moral scheme answer for the ne- 
cessity of an atonement as manifest in the very reason 
of the case ? This necessity concerns the prof oundest 
interests of moral government. They require the con- 
servation of law. Such law requires the enforcing 
sanction of penalty. Hence its remission imperatively 
requires some provisional substitute which shall fulfill 
its rectoral function. The Moral scheme offers no such 
substitute. It must ignore the most patent facts of the 

1 Luke 24 : 46, 4*7. a Acts 4:12. » Gal. 2 : 21. * Gal. 3 : 21. 



132 Theoby op Moral Influence. 

case. It must deny the leading truths of anthropology, 
as clearly given in both sacred and secular history. It 
must attribute to forgiveness a facility and indifference 
consistent, somewhat, with mere personal relations, but 
utterly inconsistent with the interests of government ; 
most of all, with the requirements of the divine moral 
government. The Moral scheme, therefore, gives no 
answer to the real necessity for an atonement. Yet 
6uch an answer is an imperative requirement. The 
scheme must be rejected. The necessity for an atone- 
ment is its refutation. 

3. By the Peculiar Saving Work of Christ. — The 
theory of Moral influence, by its deepest principles, and 
by its very content and limitation, implies and main- 
tains that Christ is a Saviour in no other mode than 
any good man is, or may be. The good man who, by 
his example, religious instruction, and personal influ- 
ence, leads a sinner to repentance and a good life, saves 
him as really and fully as Christ saves any sinner, and 
in the very same mode. The law of salvation is iden- 
tical in the two cases. The mode of redemptive help 
is one; the saving force one. And the sole difference 
between Christ and any good man in saving sinners is, 
in the measure of religious influence which they re- 
spectively exert. Many special facts respecting Christ 
may be freely admitted. To him may be conceded a 
special divine commission, a superior character, higher 
spiritual endowment, greater gifts of religious instruc- 
tion, a life of matchless graces, deeds, and sacrifices; 
and that all combine in a potency of un equaled practi- 
cal force. Still, he is a Saviour in no peculiar mode, 



Its Refutation. 133 

but only through a higher moral influence. This is the 
sum of his distinction. All his saving work is through 
a helpful religious lesson. So any good man may save 
sinners. And so many a good man does save many 
sinners, 

But is this all ? Is there no other distinction in favor 
of Christ than that of a higher moral influence prac 
tically operative upon men ? Is this all that the typ- 
ical services mean ? all that the promises and prophe- 
cies of a coming Messiah signify? all the meaning of 
the angels in the joyful announcement of the blessed 
Advent? all that Christ meant in the deeper utter- 
ances of his saving work? all that the apostles have 
written in the gospels and epistles? all that they ac- 
cepted in faith and heralded in preaching? all that 
the faith of the living Church rightfully embraces ? all 
the hope of a consciously sinful and helpless humanity 
leaning upon Christ for help? all the meaning and 
joy of the saints in the presence of the Lamb slain, as 
there in grateful love and gladsome song they ascribe 
their salvation to his blood? No, no; this is not all. 
There is infinitely more in the saving work of Christ. 
He saves us in a unique mode — one in which no other 
does or can; saves us through an atonement in his 
blood. 1 By this fact is the Moral scheme refuted. 

4. Not a Theory of Atonement. — There is here no 
issue. The facts which we have in the refutation of 
this theory deny to it all rightful position as a theory 
of atonement. It will neither interpret the Scriptures 
which reveal the atonement, nor answer to the real ne- 
1 Chapter ii, I, 7. 



134 Theory of Moeal Influence. 

cessity for one. It will not admit any proper defi 
nition of an atonement. It is in fact set forth and 
maintained in the denial of one. So, by the decisioD 
of all vitally related facts, and by the position of its 
advocates, the Moral scheme is not a theory of 
atonement. 



Prefatory Questions. 135 



CHAPTER VII. 

THEOKY OF SATISFACTION. 

A CAREFUL discrimination of leading theories on 
any great question of theology is helpful to its 
clearer apprehension, and to more definite doctrinal 
Tiiews. But such discrimination requires a careful 
study of the theories severally. We propose, there- 
fore, to give special attention to the theory of Satis- 
faction; and the more, as the real issue respecting the 
nature of the atonement is between it and the Govern- 
mental theory, rightly constructed. 

I. 

Prefatory. 
1. Position in Theology. — The theory of Satisfaction 
holds a prominent place in systematic theology. Its 
advocates freely call it the Catholic doctrine. The his- 
tory of doctrines certainly records a very large dissent. 
Yet as the doctrine of the Calvinistic system, its prom- 
inence must be conceded. But even here it is only the 
leading view. Many Calvinists dissent; and the num- 
ber is growing. It is difficult, in the face of Scripture 
and an infinite redeeming love, to maintain the po- 
sition of a limited atonement; with many, impossible. 
But this once surrendered and a general one maintained, 
consistency requires another doctrine of atonement. 
Here is one law of a large and growing dissent of 
Calvinists from the doctrine of Satisfaction. 



136 Theory of Satisfaction. 

2. Formation. — The doctrine is not from the be 
ginning. With others, it has its place in the history of 
doctrinal construction. Nor did it reach completeness 
at once. It went through a long discussion, and ap- 
peared in different phases. The princi i>le of penal sub- 
stitution was settled first, though the exact nature of 
it is scarcely settled yet. But this was found to be in 
sufficient for the Reformed system. An absolute per- 
sonal election to eternal life requires a "finished salva 
tion " in Christ. And the necessity for a substitute in 
penalty is easily interpreted to imply the necessity for 
a substitute in obedience. The law is no more absolute 
in the demand of punishment than in the requirement 
of obedience. Any principles which will admit sub- 
stitution in the former will equally admit it in the lat- 
ter. And in this system Christ must take the place of 
the elect under the law in both facts. He must an- 
swer for their sin in a vicarious punishment, and for 
their duty of personal righteousness in a vicarious 
obedience. 

Thus the doctrine of Satisfaction found its place and 
full expression in the " Federal Theology," the logical 
outcome of the Reformed system. "Christ's atone- 
ment was thus the fulfillment of the federal conditions. 
The Father, who in every part of this great transac- 
tion was at once the Lawgiver and the Fountain of the 
covenant, insisted on the full performance of the law, 
and yet provided the surety, who was made under the 
law in the proper sense of the term. It was a true 
command on God's side, and a true obedience on Christ's 
side. He stood in our covenant, which was the law 



Prefatory Questions. 137 

of works; that is, the law in its precepts and in its 
curse." ! 

The atonement of Satisfaction is often called the 
Anselmic, and is traced to the scheme of Anselm as its 
original. We have previously noted the insufficiency 
of his scheme as a scientific basis for this doctrine; and 
we have a more rational account of its genesis and 
growth as the logical requirement and product of the 
Calvinistic system. 

3. Two Vicarious Factors. — Thus in the completed 
doctrine there are two elements or factors — substituted 
punishment and substituted obedience. Nothing less, 
it is claimed, will satisfy the absolute requirement of 
justice and law. Sin must be punished; but its pun- 
ishment neither supersedes nor satisfies the require- 
ment of perfect obedience. The elect have failed in 
this obedience, and never can fulfill its obligation by 
their own personal conduct. Hence they need a sub- 
stitute in obedience as much as in penalty. Christ an- 
swers for them in both. 

Such is the atonement of Satisfaction. Christ takes 
the place of the elect in both penalty and precept, and, 
as their substitute, endures the punishment which, on 
account of sin, they deserve, and in his obedience ful- 
fills the righteousness required of them. Thus justice 
and law are satisfied. 9 The vicarious punishment dis 
charges the elect from amenability to penalty on ac- 

Prof. Smeaton: " The Apostles' Doctrine of Atonement," p. 540. 
8 Dr. Buchanan : "The Doctrine of Justification," p. 308; Dr. A. A a 
Hodge: "The Atonement," chap, xviii ; Dr. Shedd: "The Historv 
of Christian Doctrine," vol. ii, p. 341. 



138 Theory of Satisfaction. 

count of sin, and his vicarious obedience renders them 
deservedly rewardable with the eternal blessedness to 
which they are predestinated. " The Lord Jesus, by 
his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which 
he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered unto God, 
hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and pur- 
chased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inher- 
itance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom 
the Father had given unto him." 1 

4. Concerned with Penal Substitution. — In the review 
of this theory we shall limit the treatment to the one 
element of satisfaction by penal substitution. The 
other element properly belongs to the question of jus- 
tification. It really belongs to this question in the Cal- 
vinistic scheme; only, here the vicarious obedience of 
Christ is a constituent fact of the atonement itself. It 
answers to an absolute requirement of the divine law 
as really as his substituted punishment, and, by impu- 
tation to the elect, constitutes in them the ground of a 
strictly forensic justification. This is a justification by 
works, not in forgiveness. " If Christ fulfilled the law 
for us, and presents his righteousness to its demands as 
the basis of our justification, then are we justified by 
the deeds of the law, no less than if it were our own 
personal obedience and righteousness by which we are 
justified." 2 But in any view of the question, satisfao 
tion by obedience respects a different claim and office 
of justice from satisfaction by punishment. And what- 

1 Westminster Confession, chap, viii, v. 

1 Dr. Curry: 'Justification by Faith;" Methodist Quarterly Re- 
new, January, 1845, p. 22. 



Elements of the Theory. 139 

ever reason Satisfactionists may have, as arising from 
their own scheme of soteriology, for the inclusion of 
both elements in the treatment of atonement, we have 
no reason for the same method in our review. In this 
restricted treatment we have the precedence of a mas- 
ter in the soteriology of Satisfaction: "By the way, ob- 
serve I speak only of the penalty of the law, and the 
passive righteousness of Christ, strictly so called. . . . 
What place that active righteousness of Christ hath, or 
what is its use in our justification, I do not now inquire, 
being unwilling to inmix myself unnecessarily in any 
controversy." * 

Elements of the Theory. 

Most of the elements of this scheme have already 
appeared; yet it is proper that they here be stated dis- 
tinctly and in order. 

1. Satisfaction in Punishment. — The satisfaction of 
justice in its punitive demand is a cardinal fact of the 
theory. Indeed, it is so essential, that such satisfaction 
must enter into the very nature of the atonement. Both 
a moral influence with men and an important rectoral 
office are admitted, but only as incidental. Not even 
the latter is essential; nor has it any place in the foun- 
dation of the scheme. But the satisfaction of divine 
justice in the definite sense of the doctrine — satisfac- 
tion in the punishment of sin according to its demerit, 
and solely for that reason, is essential. It is not omit- 
ted in the case of the redeemed and saved, nor can it 
be. The atonement is in a mode to render the satisfao- 
^wen: "Works," (Goold's,) vol. x, p. 442. 



140 Theory of Satisfaction. 

tion required. Indeed, such satisfaction is the atone- 
ment as it respects the claim of retributive justice 
against the demerit of sin. 

2. By a Substitute in Penalty. — In this doctrine the 
satisfaction is by substitutional punishment. The ab- 
solute necessity for the satisfaction renders this the 
only possible mode of redemption. Hence, it is main- 
tained, Christ takes the law-place of elect sinners, and 
suffers in their stead the penalty due to their sins, 01 
such a penalty as satisfies the punitive demand of jus- 
tice against them. 

3. Three Senses of the Substitution. — On the nature 
of the penal substitution, or in what sense Christ suf- 
fered the penalty of sin, advocates of the doctrine have 
not been of one mind. Indeed, it has been with them a 
question of diverse views, and of no little controversy. 
The history of the question gives us three forms of 
opinion. 

i. In Identical Penalty. — This view has such palpa- 
ble difficulties, that of course the thinkers of a great 
Christian communion could not agree in it. Yet it has 
its place in the history of Calvinistic soteriology; and, 
though now generally discarded, it is still thought wor- 
thy of the attention and adverse criticism of the Cal- 
vinistic authors holding a different view. In the time 
of its currency great divines were among its represent- 
atives; for instance, John Owen. 1 And he had a fol- 

1 " That which I maintain as to this point in difference I have also 
made apparent. It is wholly comprised uuder these two heads — first, 
Christ suffered the same penalty which was in the obligation ; sec- 
ondly, to do so is to make payment ejusdem, and not tantidem." — Works, 
(Goold's,) voL x, p. 448. 



Elements of the Theory. 141 

lowing; and such, that it is common to speak of his 
school. 

It is needless to array the many difficulties of such a 
view. An identical punishment by substitution is in 
any case psychologically impossible. What, then, must 
be the fact with such a substitute as Christ? Punish- 
nient is suffered in the consciousness of the subject. 
Its nature, therefore, must be largely determined by 
his own personal character in relation to sin and pen- 
alty. It is hence impossible that Christ should suffer 
in substitution as the actual sinner deserves to suffer, 
and would suffer, in his own punishment. Nor can such 
a principle render any explanation of the difference be- 
tween the redemptive sufferings of Christ as only tem- 
porary, and the merited punishment of sinners, as eter- 
nal. Words are easily uttered. Therefore it is easy 
to attempt a solution of the difficulty by saying that 
the sufferings of Christ fulfilled the legal requirement 
of eternal punishment, because, while temporal in fact, 
they were potentially or intensively eternal. But such 
terms have no meaning in such a use. 

ii. In Equal Penalty. — Christ endured penal suffer- 
ings equal in amount to the merited penal sufferings of 
all the sinners redeemed. This view, also, has its place 
in historic Calvinism, and a broader one than that of 
identical penalty. It is now generally discarded. Yet 
its present disrepute is not properly from any funda- 
mental principle. If possible and necessary, it should 
be permissible, on the very principle of penal substi- 
tution. It is rejected as impossible, or certainly not 
aotual, because rendered unnecessary to a sufficient 
10 



142 Theory of Satisfaction. 

atonement by the superior rank of Christ as substitute 
in penalty. Strange that it ever should have found 
favor or friend. It needs no refutation. And all 
friends of great doctrinal truth should be glad that now 
it is generally discarded. 

Hi. In Equivalent Penalty. — The sense is, that the 
penal sufferings of Christ, while far less in quantity 
than the merited penal sufferings of the sinners re- 
deemed, were yet, in quantity and quality combined, of 
equal value for the satisfaction of justice, and, there- 
fore, an equivalent substitute in the case. The higher 
supplementary quality is derived from the superior 
rank of Christ as substitute in penalty. It is as the 
payment of gold in the place of silver. The claim is 
satisfied with a reduction of quantity in proportion to 
the higher quality of the substitute. 1 This is now the 
common form of penal substitution as held in the doc- 
trine of Satisfaction. But justice must have penal sat- 
isfaction, either in the full punishment of the actual of- 
fender or in an equivalent punishment of his substitute. 

4. Absolute Substitution. — Atonement by substitution 
is not a distinctive fact of the theory of Satisfaction. 
The Rectoral theory holds the same fact fully and 
firmly. Nor is an atonement by penal substitution a 
distinctive fact of that doctrine. Many hold such a 
penal substitution as, in their view, constitutes a really 
conditional ground of forgiveness. 8 In this scheme the 
redemptive sufferings of Christ were, in some sense not 
exactly defined, the punishment of sin; but not such a 

• Dr. Shedd: " Theological Essays," pp. 300, 301. 

• Chap, v, II, 1. 



Elements of the Theoey. 143 

punishment that the redeemed sinner must in very jus- 
tice be discharged. We have previously stated the in- 
consistency of the position. Penal substitution and a 
real conditionality of forgiveness must refuse scientific 
fellowship. We accept, therefore, the view of Dr. A. 
A. Hodge, that it is " by a happy sacrifice of logic " 
that Arminius himself, and some of his leading follow- 
ers, are with the Calvinists on penal substitution; 1 only, 
we reject the epithet qualifying the sacrifice. We do 
not think it a happy sacrifice of logic on the part of 
an Arminian, whereby he mistakes the true nature of 
the atonement, and at the same time admits a principle 
which requires him, in consistency, to accept along with 
it the purely distinctive doctrines of Calvinism. But 
whatever the sacrifice of logic in the case, the fact of 
such a theory remains the same. And this fact denies 
to the doctrine of Satisfaction the distinctive fact of 
penal substitution. 

It hence follows that the distinctive fact of the Satis- 
faction theory is an absolute penal substitution ; abso- 
lute in the sense of a real and sufficient punishment of 
sin in Christ as substitute in penalty; and also in the 
sense of an unconditional discharge of all for whom he 
is such a substitute. Such a discharge follows neces- 
sarily from the very nature of the substitution alleged, 
and in the averment of the very masters in the sote 
riology of Satisfaction. This will appear in its phice. 
1 " The Atonement," p. 14 



144 Theory of Satisfaction. 

III. 

Justice and Atonement. 

1. Their Relation. — Were there no justice, there 
could be no sin in any strict forensic sense. There 
could be neither guilt nor punishment. The judicial 
treatment of sin is from its relation to justice and law. 
It can neither be judicially condemned nor forgiven, 
except in such relation. Hence, as the atonement is 
the ground of the divine forgiveness, there must be a 
most intimate relation between it and justice. And 
for a true doctrine of atonement, we require a true 
doctrine of justice. 

It follows, that in any scientific treatment, the theory 
of atonement must accord with the doctrine of justice 
upon which it is constructed. The atonement of Satis- 
faction is exceptionally rigid in its conformity to this 
law. The same law is observed in the Rectoral atone- 
ment; yet here its relation to justice has not been as 
fully and exactly treated as it should be, and as it must 
be in order to a right construction and exposition of 
the doctrine. These facts require some specific state- 
ments respecting justice which may be appropriate 
here, though the fuller treatment will be in connection 
with the principles specially concerned in the ques- 
tion, as we find them in the Satisfaction and Rectoral 
theories. 

2. Distinctions of Justice. — Technically, justice is in 
several kinds; but, strictly, such distinctions are from 
its different relations and offices rather than intrinsic 
to itself. 



Justice and Atonement. 145 

i. Commutative. — Justice, in this distinction, has a 
commercial sense, and is specially concerned with busi- 
ness transactions. The rendering or requiring an exact 
due or equivalent, and whether in money or other 
commodity, is commutative justice. It has no admitted 
place in the atonement, except in the now generally 
discarded sense of identical or equal penalty. Whether 
that of equivalent penalty is logically clear of the prin- 
ciple, we may yet inquire. 

ii. Distributive. — This is justice in a moral and fo- 
rensic sense. It regards men as under moral obligation 
and law; as obedient or disobedient; as morally good 
or evil in their personal character; and is the render- 
ing to them reward or punishment according to their 
personal conduct. Some divide it into premial and 
punitive; but the sense is not thereby changed. 

Hi. Public. — Public justice, in its relation to moral 
government, is not a distinct kind, but simply divine 
justice in moral administration. It is really one with 
distributive justice, properly interpreted. We do not 
accept the interpretation of Satisfactionists. On the 
other hand, advocates of the Rectoral atonement have 
unduly lowered the truth of public justice. On a right 
exposition of each, the two are one. But we shall find 
a more appropriate place for the treatment of public 
justice when discussing the Governmental atonement. 1 

3. Punitive Justice and Satisfaction. — Punitive jus- 
tice is justice in the punishment of sin, or the office 

1 Dr. Wardlaw : " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, pp. 368-372 ; 
Owen: "A Dissertation on Divine Justice," part i, "Works, (Goold's.) 

vol. X. 



146 Theory of Satisfaction. 

of which is to punish it. And punitive, as a qualifying 
term, best expresses that principle of justice which the 
theory under review claims to have been satisfied by 
the penal substitution of Christ. 

Remunerative justice has respect to obedience and 
its reward. The law, as its expression, requires per- 
fect obedience as the ground of the reward. And, on 
the theory of Satisfaction, Christ by his persoual obe- 
dience meritoriously fulfilled the law in behalf of the 
elect. But his righteousness so represented as an ele- 
ment of atonement in the satisfaction of justice, re- 
spects an essentially different principle from that con- 
cerned in his penal substitution, and, as before noted, 
has no proper place in the present discussion. 

Then the essential fact of punitive justice is, that 
it punishes sin according to its demerit, and on that 
ground ; and must none the less so punish it in the 
total absence of every other reason or end. Such is 
the justice which the theory under review claims to 
have been satisfied by the penal substitution of Christ. 

IV. 

Principles of the Theory. 

The theory of Satisfaction necessarily posits certain 
principles as underlying the doctrine of atonement 
which it maintains. They must constitute the very 
basis of the doctrine. Yet they require but a brief 
statement here, as their fuller treatment will be in con- 
nection with a critical testing of the theory. 

1. The Demerit of Sin. — Sin has intrinsic demerit. 
It deserves the retribution of divine justice on account 



Its Principles. 147 

of its intrinsic evil, and entirely irrespective of all 
salutary results of its punishment. 

We accept this principle, and in the fullest persua- 
sion of its truth. Nor have we any theory to con- 
struct upon its denial. It is a truth in fullest accord 
with the Holy Scriptures. Their announced penalties 
represent this demerit. Such penalties have no other 
ground in justice. And our moral consciousness, es- 
pecially under divine enlightenment and quickening, 
responds to the voice of Scripture. But the punitive 
demerit of sin, so given and affirmed, is in no discord 
with our own doctrine of atonement. 

2. A Divine Punitive Justice. — There is a punitive 
justice in God. And it is a fact of his very nature, as 
specific and real as any other fact. It is no mere phase 
of his benevolence, nor reaction of his pity, simply, for 
one wronged, against the author of his wrong. God, in 
his very justice, condemns sin as such. Nor is such 
condemnation a mere judgment of the discordance of 
sin with his own uttered precepts, or with some ideal 
or impersonal law, or with the welfare of others, but 
the profoundest emotional reprobation of it because of 
its inherent evil, 

So we maintain. Hence we reject the view of Leib- 
nitz, and of all agreeing with him, "that justice is a 
modification of benevolence ;" * a view that has re- 
ceived too much favor from advocates of the Rectoral 
atonement. Whether the love of God is his supreme 
law in moral administration is really another question, 
and one not negatived by the truth of his justice. But 
Gilbert: "The Christian Atonement," p. 185. 



148 Theory of Satisfaction 

our own moral nature, as divinely constituted, joins 
with the Holy Scriptures in attesting the truth of such 
a divine justice. Our moral reason distinguishes be- 
tween the turpitude of a sinful deed and the injury 
which it may inflict. A like injury, innocently done, 
awakens no such reprobation. We reprobate the in- 
tention of injury where the doing is hindered. Thus 
our moral reason witnesses for a divine justice. Such 
justice, in its deepest, divinest sentiment, condemns sin 
as such, and is a disposition to punish it. We main- 
tain this view. 

3. Sin Ought to be Punished. — This proposition is 
freely affirmed, but with little regard to its proper 
analysis, and, therefore, with little apprehension of its 
meaning. A sinner may say, and with all sincerity, 
that he ought to be punished ; but all he means is, that 
he deserves to be punished. He has in mind and con- 
science his own demerit, and not the obligation of an- 
other respecting him. Often the term is used respect- 
ing sin in the same sense— that it deserves to be pun- 
ished; but this adds nothing to what we already have. 
The proposition is identical in meaning with a former 
one, which affirms the punitive desert of sin. 

But the term ought, as used in the theory of Satisfac- 
tion, must have a ground in obligation, and that obli- 
gation must lie upon God as moral Ruler. Such is the 
requirement of the theory. If sin ought to be punished, 
God is under obligation to punish it. Such is the in- 
evitable logic of the proposition. This carries Satis- 
factionists into a very high position, and very difficult 
to hold, but which, they must hold or suffer a destructive 



Its Peinciples. 149 

breach in their line of necessary principles. For such 
divine obligation, whether understood as included in 
the meaning of the proposition or not, is a logica* im- 
plication and necessity of the scheme. And this obli- 
gation must be maintained simply on the ground of 
demerit in sin, and apart from all the interests of moral 
government But for its proper discussion the question 
goes forward to a critical testing of the theory of Satis- 
faction. 

4. Penal Satisfaction a Necessity of Justice. — Sin 
must be punished. It must be punished on its own 
account, and none the less in the total absence of all 
salutary influence of punishment, whether upon the 
sinner himself or upon the public virtue and welfare. 
It is a necessity of judicial rectitude in God. Divine 
justice must have penal satisfaction. This principle it, 
really one with that immediately preceding. It is the 
last that we need name. And here we part with the 
theory of Satisfaction. We do not admit this principle. 
We reject it, not only as without evidence of its truth, 
but also because of evidence to the contrary. 

5. The Determining Principle. — The irremissibility of 
penalty is the determining principle of the theory of 
Satisfaction. Merited penalty is absolutely irremissible 
on any and all grounds whatsoever. The scheme allows 
a commutation of persons in punishment, or will admit 
a substitute in place of the offender ; but such an ex- 
change of subjects in punishment is no omission of 
penalty. The offender is discharged, but his substitute 
suffers the deserved penalty in his stead ; or suffers, at 
least, its penal equivalent with the divine law. This, 



150 Theory op Satisfaction 

indeed, is the very averment of the doctrhe. Nor ia 
there any omission of punishment in an exchange of 
measure which justice permits in view of the higher 
rank of the substitute. In any and every way there is, 
and there must be, the infliction of deserved penalty. 
The sinner or his substitute must be punished according 
to the demerit of the sin. This is the necessity for an 
atonement in the scheme of Satisfaction. 

Hence the absolute irremissibility of penalty deter- 
mines the atonement to be by penal substitution. 
There is no other possible atonement. We know and 
welcome the account made of the rank and worth of 
Christ as penal substitute ; an account logically value- 
less and unnecessary with the forms of identical and 
equal penalty, but consistent with that of equivalent 
penalty. But even here they are of account only as 
they give punitive value to his atoning sufferings ; so 
that, as before noted, justice is satisfied with a less 
quantity in proportion to the higher quality. Still it 
is only penal suffering that counts in this element of 
atonement. And the very substance of such an atone- 
ment is substituted punishment in satisfaction of an 
absolute punitive justice. 

V. 

Analytic Testing of the Theory. 
1. Justice as Satisfiable. — Since it is so positively 
asserted that justice must have satisfaction in the 
punishment of sin, and since the fact itself is so essen- 
tial to this theory, it is well to inquire wherein, or iu 
what form of justice, this satisfaction may be realized. 



Analytically Tested. 151 

Propositions given assertatively merely, may gain such 
currency as long to continue even unchallenged. Such, 
in some measure, is the fact respecting this ground- 
principle of the theory of Satisfaction. It has right- 
fully no such franchise. We shall more than challenge it 
Hence we raise the question respecting the penal satisfia- 
bleness of justice. A true answer is important; but to be 
given only in a correct view of cardinal facts in the case. 
i. Mistake Easy. — One may easily affirm the nec- 
essary penal satisfaction of justice without any proper 
analysis of the proposition, and, therefore, without any 
proper apprehension of its meaning, and equally with- 
out any ground in truth. Hence it is easy to mistake 
the satisfiableness of justice. Much, however, depends 
upon the conception of justice. If it be the concep- 
tion of an ideal or impersonal justice, there is little oc- 
casion for mistake: for however exalted we may hold 
it to be — even if as eternal and immutable — as above 
God and the law of his own righteousness in moral 
administration — yet, as purely ideal or impersonal, we 
cannot reasonably regard it as satisfiable in any real or 
proper sense; certainly not in any sense answering to 
the requirement of the Satisfaction scheme. Mistake 
arises with the personification of an ideal justice. 
When we clothe it in personal attributes — intelligence, 
moral reason, resentment against sin, retributive wrath 
—then we may regard it as satisfiable, and as really 
satisfied with the punishment of sin. The idea simply 
completes the personification. But it is as far from 
the reality of truth as a mere personification is from a 
real personality. 



152 Theory op Satisfaction 

Hence, if we would answer truly wherein, or in what 
form of it, justice may be satisfied with the punish- 
ment of sin, we must avoid all figurative modes of 
thought and expression, particularly of personification, 
and turn from an abstract to a concrete justice — to jus 
tice as a personal attribute. 

it. Satisfiable only in Personality. — Justice has no 
self -personality, and no separate self -existence. Nor is 
it satisfiable, except as a personal attribute or in per- 
sonality. 

In speaking, as we often do, of punishment as satis- 
fying justice, we may have primary reference in 
thought to some personal injury or wrong, or to the 
demerit of sin, or to the legal penalty, or to the prin- 
ciple of justice; but satisfaction is so referable only as 
such conceptions represent personal sentiments of moral 
justice. And, strictly, the sense of satisfaction has 
reference solely to such personal sentiments. Without 
them justice can have no satisfaction in the punishment 
of sin, and is in no proper sense satisfiable. 

Hence, if in any case we assert a necessary satisfaction 
of justice in the punishment of sin, we assume such 
a punitive disposition and sense of judicial obligation 
in some person or persons as will render the satisfaction 
possible, and as will inevitably execute the deserve J 
penalty. There is no other law which can necessitate 
the punitive satisfaction of justice. 

Hi. True of Divine Justice. — Such are the facts of 
divine justice. It is not something separate or sepa- 
rable from God, except in abstract thought. Apart 
from him, it is void of all capacity for satisfaction in 



Analytically Tested. 153 

punishment, and of all power and disposition to exact 
it. But justice as an attribute of God is penally satis- 
fiable. As such, it is no imjDersonal or abstract prin- 
ciple. It is more than a mere cognitive judgment; it 
is a mora: judgment, a condemnatory sense of sin, a 
moral resentment against it, a disposition to punish it. 
Such resentment and disposition of justice are right, 
as true to the demerit of sin and the divine holi- 
ness. Their satisfaction in the punishment of sin is 
the satisfaction of divine justice. Sueh is the only 
satisfaction. 

When, therefore, Satisfactionists assert a necessity 
for the retributive satisfaction of divine justice in the 
definite sense of their own doctrine, they assume such 
a punitive disposition in God, or such a sense of obli- 
gation in the requirement of judicial rectitude, as 
must imperatively demand the satisfaction and neces- 
sitate the infliction of merited penalty in its realiza- 
tion. There can be in the justice of God no other ne- 
cessitating law of penal satisfaction. 

2. Question of Necessity for Pencil Satisfaction. — 
Must God have the satisfaction of his justice in the 
punishment of sin? The question seems to reach to- 
ward unreachable heights. But those who allege the 
necessity lead the way ; and if they may lead, we may 
follow, The real point, however, must be held in clear 
view. In such a question all jumbling must be care- 
fully avoided. Nor must we lose sight of the facts 
which must condition and necessitate the satisfaction 
of justice. Such facts have, as we have seen, full ap- 
plication to the divine justice. Any necessity in God 



154 Theory of Satisfaction 

for the punitive satisfaction of his justice must arise 
either from his own disposition as hostile to sin, or 
from his sense of judicial obligation as absolutely- 
requiring its merited punishment. On the ground of 
such facts, must divine justice have retributive satis- 
faction ? 

3. No Necessity in Divine Disposition. — Wo admit 
and maintain a retributive justice in God. We also as- 
sert a punitive disposition as a fact of his justice. It 
hence follows, that, so far as this disposition is con- 
cerned, there is a divine impulse toward the punish- 
ment of sin, and a divine satisfaction therein. Is this 
disposition such as to necessitate the satisfaction ? 

It should be distinctly noted, that we are here con- 
cerned simply with this disposition. The rectoral office 
and obligation of justice, and the punishment of sin, 
simply on the ground of its demerit as a requirement of 
personal rectitude in God, are questions entirely apart 
from the one in hand, and to be treated separately. 

In reasoning from a divine disposition, we must not 
forget that it is such, nor allege any thing respecting it 
inconsistent with the divine character. We may sup- 
pose a punitive disposition of men so vindictive and 
revengeful that only an insuperable hinderance would 
prevent its satisfaction in punishment. In a mere ques- 
tion of power there can be no such hinderance to the 
divine justice. But who would ascribe to God such a 
disposition as this analogy would suggest ? Its admis- 
sion would involve a denial of the possibility of an 
atonement. For such a disposition in God would nec- 
essarily exact penal satisfaction, and also by an equal 



Analytically Tested. 155 

necessity exact it of the actual offender. As a personal 
disposition exacting personal satisfaction, it could ad- 
mit no substitute in penalty. Besides, such a disposi- 
tion is so contrary to the character of God as given in 
the Scriptures, that no one attempting the construction 
of a doctrine of atonement in the light of their teach- 
ing could maintain such a necessity for the punishment 
of sin. 

Apart from this special aspect of the question, and 
treating it simply in view of a punitive disposition in 
God, there is no necessity for the punishment of sin 
from the fact of such a disposition. There is no neces- 
sity in the divine nature for the satisfaction of every 
divine impulse or feeling. Yet only such a necessity 
could conclude a necessity for the satisfaction of the 
punitive disposition. For if there be no such necessity 
respecting other divine dispositions, there may be none 
respecting this. 

Besides, to assume a necessity for the satisfaction of 
all divine dispositions is to assume what is impossible; 
for in every instance of punitive satisfaction there is a 
sacrifice of the feeling of compassion. "For at the 
very instant when the immaculate holiness of God is 
burning with intensity, and reacting by an organic re- 
coil against sin, the infinite pity of God is yearning 
with a fathomless desire to save the transgressor from 
the effects of this very displeasure." x Nor is this any 
mere speculation or inference. Explicit words of Script- 
ure give the fact of this divine sacrifice. " As I live, 
saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of 

*Dr. Shedd: "Theological Essays," p. 210. 



156 Theory of Satisfaction 

the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and 
live." ■ " How shall I give thee up ? mine heart is 
turned within me, my repentings are kindled together,'* 
are his words of compassion over the perishing. 2 And 
he is declared to be " long-suffering to us-ward, not 
willing that any should perish, but that all should come 
to repentance." 3 The cross voices the truth and depth 
of this compassion. The precious blood thereon shed 
is the down-flowing of pitying love upon guilty souls. 
Now in the coincidence of divine feelings, so diverse in 
kind, complete satisfaction is impossible. Hence, the 
satisfaction of justice is no necessity of a punitive dis- 
position in God. 

4. As Concerning tlie Divine Rectitude. — We come 
to the gist of the question in the scheme of Satisfaction. 
On the punishment of sin as a requirement of the di- 
vine rectitude, very much is said assertatively. So far, 
a mere denial is all that a fair polemics requires. Yet 
we may further consider the main position of the doc- 
trine under review. It is, that in the very rectitude of 
the divine justice sin must be punished, and, therefore, 
that substitutional punishment is the only possible 
atonement for sin. 

But we want the exact position as concerning the 
divine rectitude. It must be separated from all eke, 
and held in clear distinction. A retributive sentiment 
in God, as disposing him to the punishment of sin, has 
no place here. Nor has the rectoral office of justice 
any place in the present issue. All interests of moral 
government, as ends of justice in moral administration, 

J Ezek. 33: 11. 3 Hoseall: 8. ^Pet.S: 9. 



Analytically Tested. 157 

are outside of the question. The position is, that in 
the maintenance of personal and judicial rectitude God 
must punish sin in the measure of its demerit, and 
solely on this ground. The requirement would be none 
the less imperative in the absence of all salutary influ- 
ence of punishment upon the interest of moral govern- 
ment; indeed, none the less imperative, as the position 
is taken, were the result a detriment to such interest. 

It will readily be asserted that even the supposition 
of such a detriment is not permissible. But the asser- 
tion is far from apodictic. Divine rewards, both pre- 
mial and punitive, have an office in the interest of moral 
government — necessarily an influence upon such inter- 
est. The tendency of the influence much depends 
upon the temper or disposition of the subjects of gov- 
ernment: and the result, whether beneficial or detri- 
mental, is determined by the view taken of such re- 
wards; and not necessarily right views, or such as 
should be taken, but such as may be or actually are 
taken. Now it is certain that in secular government, 
of whatever form, punishment may be too severe, as 
well as too lenient, for the public good. The very se- 
verity has a hardening influence, engenders hatred, and 
the very spirit of rebellion. And subjects are the same 
in susceptibility to the rectoral influence of penalty 
under the divine as under human government. It is, 
therefore, a permissible supposition that even within 
tho limit of demerit there is a possible severity of pen- 
alty which would be a detriment to the highest good of 
moral government. But even in such a case, the doc- 
trine of Satisfaction asserts, and must assert, the pun- 
11 



158 Theory of Satisfaction 

ishrnent of sin in the full measure of its demerit as a 
necessity of the divine righteousness. And such a fact 
is sufficient for the disproof of a doctrine to which it is 
a logical consequent. 

Is God under an absolute obligation to punish sin in 
the measure of its demerit, and solely on that ground? 
Is he under such an obligation that any omission of 
punishment, even in part, would be an injustice and a 
sacrifice of personal rectitude ? The doctrine of Satis- 
faction answers affirmatively. This is its ground-prin- 
ciple for the necessity of an atonement, and determina- 
tive of its nature. The requirements of the divine 
rectitude in the case specially concern the two ques- 
tions of veracity and justice. 

5. No Necessity of Divine Veracity. — Some main- 
tain the asserted necessity for punishment on the 
ground that the divine veracity is involved therein. 
God has proclaimed his own law, with its clearly ex- 
pressed penalties, as due to sin. It is hence claimed 
that his word is really given for the execution of these 
penalties, and, therefore, that his truthfulness or fidelity 
to his own word requires the execution. Any omission 
would be a sacrifice of his personal rectitude. 

This really gives another ground for the alleged 
necessity of punishment as concerning the divine rec- 
titude. So far as the present position reaches, we 
might infer that if God had not given his word for the 
punishment of sin, he would be under no such obliga- 
tion : but now, having so given his word, the obliga- 
tion of veracity requires the execution of uttered 
penalty. 



Analytically Tested. 159 

Such position is logically valid only on the ground 
that the divine utterances of penalty are absolute. A1J 
condition, even implied condition, must be excluded. 
How far i3 this the fact ? 

We admit that many divine utterances of penalty 
are absolute in form: we equally deny that all are so 
in fact. The Scriptures give us instances of implied 
conditionality with absolute form. The threatened 
doom of Nineveh was most absolute in form but not 
so in fact, as the result proved. 1 There are many like 
instances. No words could be more absolute in form 
than those which gave expression to the punishment of 
disobedience under the primitive probation: "For in 
the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." a It 
was not absolute in fact, else it must have been exe- 
cuted in exact accordance with its terms, as certainly it 
was not. Now such utterance of penalty, absolute in 
form but not so in fact, does not absolutely bind the 
divine veracity to its execution. And until the doc- 
trine of Satisfaction can make good the position of ab- 
soluteness in the divine utterance of penalty, and in 
the fact as well as in the form, it has no sufficient 
premise for the consequence, that any remission of 
penalty, except through an equivalent substitutional 
punishment of sin, is a surrender of the divine recti- 
tude in the matter of veracity. 

"We see clearly the seeming delicacy of the position 

here taken. Yet the facts are as we have given them. 

And we have only stated them, not made them. But 

it may be inferred that the position which we ground 

1 Jonah 3 : \-±, 10. * Gen. 2 : 17. 



160 Theory of Satisfaction 

in such facts puts all penalty in uncertainty. It has no 
such consequence. There is never any remission, ex- 
cept on such ground and conditions as fully justify it. 
The ground is such, that except thereon there is abso- 
lutely no forgiveness. And the conditions are such, 
that except upon their observance there is absolutely 
no forgiveness. In the case of the first sin the divine 
administration was modified, and the sin rendered for- 
givable only through the incoming of a redemptive 
economy in Christ. Our sin is forgivable only on the 
ground of atonement. Except on such ground, there 
is absolutely no forgiveness. Salvation in Christ is 
freely offered on the condition of faith, but with the 
announced penalty of damnation to him who believes 
not. Thus, apart from Christ, and without faith in him, 
penalty is absolute, and in no uncertainty of execution. 
But, further, the doctrine of Satisfaction cannot, ex- 
cept in self-destruction, base the necessity for penal 
substitution on the ground that the divine veracity re- 
quires the actual infliction of uttered penalty. Any 
such requirement must include the execution of penalty 
according to the very terms and import of its utter- 
ance. The divine penal utterances against sin are no 
more exact and positive in the designation of penalty 
than in the designation of its subject. It is no more 
absolutely affirmed that sin shall be punished with 
death than that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die " l 
And if the divine veracity requires the execution of 
penalty according to the terms of its utterance, clearly 
the case will admit no substitute in punishment. The 
^zek. 18: 4, 20. 



Analytically Tested. 161 

actual sinner must himself die Only this will fulfill 
the terms of the law. For illustration, take again the 
law of the primitive probation. " Death " is no more 
absolute as the penalty of disobedience, than " thou " as 
the subject of its infliction. And Satisfactionists them- 
selves interpret this penalty of disobedience in Adam 
as death physical, spiritual, eternal, to him and also to 
all his posterity as in him, or represented by him, and, 
therefore, justly answerable in penalty for his sin. 
Hence, in the case of any other destiny for any one, 
the penalty is not executed according to the terms of 
its divine utterance. 

The assumption of a necessity for substitutional pun- 
ishment as the only atonement, because God has de- 
clared the punishment of sin, is such an assumption as 
must preclude vicarious atonement. No penal substitu- 
tion can so answer to the terms of divinely-uttered pen- 
alty as to fulfill the alleged requirement in the divine 
veracity. No ingenuity in Scripture exegesis, nor any 
dialectic acumen, can make the punishment of a substi- 
tute the same, either in fact, justice, or law, as the pun- 
ishment of the sinner himself. We have an alternative 
conclusion, and in either way, against the scheme under 
review. The doctrine of Satisfaction either makes good 
its position for the necessity of punishing sin as a re- 
quirement of the divine veracity, or it does not. In 
the former case, penal substitution is excluded, as being 
no clearance of the divine veracity; in the latter, no 
proof is brought from the alleged requirement of the 
divine veracity for penal substitution as the only pos- 
sible atonement. 



162 Theory of Satisfaction 

6. No Necessity of Judicial Rectitude. — It is propel 
here again sharply to discriminate the position in issue. 
Its advocates too often run into illegitimate argumen- 
tation. It is easy to assert, as so commonly done, that 
sin has intrinsic demerit; that God is holy and abhor* 
it; that he must manifest his displeasure against it; that 
he must vindicate his justice and law before the moral 
universe. But such facts belong equally to another 
doctrine of atonement; some of them exclusively so. 
Why must God reveal his holiness? Why must he 
manifest his displeasure against sin ? Why must he 
vindicate his justice and law before men and angels? 
The proper answer to such questions turns away from 
the atonement of Satisfaction and gives support to the 
Rectoral scheme. The position in issue is, that God 
must, in judicial rectitude, punish sin because of its de- 
merit, and solely for this reason. No other reason 
must be here alleged. To allege any other, is to depart 
from all that is peculiar and essential to the scheme of 
Satisfaction. God would be unjust or remiss in the 
duty of justice in any omission of punishment, simply 
because of the intrinsic demerit of sin. By such omis 
sion, whatever other reason be present or absent, he 
would sacrifice his judicial rectitude. His administra 
tion would not be just. He would not fulfill the obli 
gat ion of his justice. This is the position. It is essen- 
tial to the doctrine of Satisfaction, and must be main- 
tained, or the scheme fails. 

How do we know of any such necessity in the judi- 
cial rectitude of God ? How do we know that back of 
all the interests of moral government, and all require- 



Analytically Tested. 163 

meiits of the divine administration in their service, there 
is upon him an obligation to punish sin in the full 
measure of its desert ? Such a principle is not given 
in the Scriptures. Nor is it inductively verifiable. It 
is no apodictive truth; and its a priori assertion is 
far above the power of our highest reason. Within the 
sphere of actual moral government we know something 
of God and his laws, as he has been pleased therein to 
reveal himself and them. Beyond this we know but 
little ; certainly not enough for the assertion of a neces- 
sity in the divine rectitude to punish sin solely on the 
ground of its demerit. But if there be such a necessity, 
it must bar an economy of substitutional punishment, 
unless sin itself can be put upon the substitute in pen- 
alty. This, however, is impossible, even with God. But 
without penal substitution, or the punishment of sin in 
a substitute, the doctrine of Satisfaction is utterly 
groundless. 

There is neither injustice nor omission of justice, ex- 
cept in some wrong or omission of duty. And there 
can be neither, except in respect of some right or in- 
terest. A father omits the deserved punishment of his 
son. This is no wrong to the son simply in the matter 
of his demerit, because demerit is not in the nature of 
\ personal right. But the impunity supposed might be 
to the detriment of the son, or of the family govern- 
ment. Here is a reason for punishment, and such as 
would render its omission a wrong; but a reason outside 
of the demerit in the case, and arising in the sphere of 
rights and interests concerned. A crime is committed, 
and the criminal is suffered to go unpunished. This, 



164 Thboet of Satisfaction 

bo far as his desert is concerned, is no injustice to him; 
for, again, punitive demerit is not in the nature of a 
personal right. So far as punishment might have a 
restraining or reformatory influence upon the criminal, 
any obligation is with the administration, but with re- 
spect to the criminal's interest, not his demerit. Or, 
his impunity might encourage crime, to the serious det- 
riment of the community. In such a case omission of 
punishment would be an injustice or wrong, not, how- 
ever, because of demerit in the criminal, but because 
of a neglect of the rights and interests of others which 
justice should protect. 

Such principles equally apply to divine justice. One 
sins against God. His sin has intrinsic demerit, and, 
apart from every thing else, deserves the penalty of 
justice. But demerit in itself simply, neither constitutes 
any punitive right in the sinner nor imposes any puni- 
tive obligation upon God. All that it does or can do 
is to render punishment just; while any punitive obli- 
gation of justice must arise in respect of rights or in- 
terests either personal to the sinner or appertaining to 
others which justice should protect. On the ground 
of demerit, punishment for such ends is just, which it 
would not be without the demerit. And surely an in- 
finitely just, wise, and good Sovereign may take account 
of such great ends, and determine his punitive minis- 
tries simply in view of them. Nor can any omission of 
punishment by the divine Ruler be a violation of judi- 
cial rectitude, except such omission be an avoidable 
detriment to some right or interest. But when we go 
beyond the demerit of sin as the only ground of just 



Analytically Tested. 165 

punishment, and find the reason for its infliction in 
rights, whether of the divine Ruler or his subjects, we 
find such reason, not in the most essential principle of 
the Satisfaction scheme, but in facts which go into the 
Rectoral theory, and give their support to it. 

We are all under the obligations of a divine law, 
with its precepts, promises, penalties. One obeys, and 
rightfully claims the promised reward. He is wronged 
if it be withheld, because an acquired right is denied 
him. Such is the fact irrespective of all questions of 
rectoral influence from the character of the adminis- 
tration. But there is with justice a double reason for 
giving the promised reward: an acquired right, and the 
interest of a salutary rectoral influence. Another dis- 
obeys, and thereby acquires a desert of punishment, but 
no right to it. Either himself or others might suffer 
wrong on account of his impunity; but, as we have be- 
fore seen, the consequent obligation to punish him 
arises entirely apart from his demerit. And it is still 
true that the consequence of his demerit is simply to 
render his punishment just. He may, therefore, be 
justly punished, either for his own good or for the good 
of others. 

Nor do such views cast any doubt upon justice as an 
essential attribute of God. It is such an attribute. So 
is love. And neither excludes the other, though love 
is supreme. And God rules, not simply as just, but 
also as eternally wise and good. Penalty has a special 
function in his government. It is a rightful means for 
the vindication of his own honor and authority, and for 
the conservation of the rights and interest of his sub- 



166 Theory of Satisfaction 

jects. And justice does not cease to be such, nor be- 
come injustice, by any omission of penalty which does 
not contravene such ends of its infliction. Its punitive 
obligation is fulfilled when penalty is so wisely and 
benevolently, as well as justly, executed, as to achieve 
in the highest degree attainable the great ends of moral 
government. 

1 The doctrine of punishment maintained is without logical conse- 
quence respecting its duration. It would follow, that should punish- 
ment ever cease to be a rectoral necessity it might then terminate. 
But this fact is without logical consequence in the case, because the 
duration of punishment is a question of revelation, not of reason. 

Were the duration of punishment treated as a question of reason, 
it would be necessary to prove two things by rational evidence in 
order to conclude its eternity : one, that sin deserves eternal punish- 
ment ; the other, that it must be punished in the measure of its 
desert. Reason can prove neither. But, while we write this, we 
further write that reason is equally powerless to disprove the eter- 
uity of punishment. The question of its necessary duration is above 
the sphere of her powers. On the ground of such facts, our doc- 
trine is without logical consequence respecting the duration of pun- 
ishment. 

This is a question of revelation, and as purely so as the question 
of the divine Trinity, the incarnation of the Son, or the resurrection 
of the dead. On the ground of revelation the eternity of punish- 
ment is fearfully certain. It is, therefore, both just and necessary, 
because it is the ministry of a just God, and infinitely wise and good 
as well as just. Such is the order of these facts. The Scriptures 
do not first posit an infinite demerit of sin as the ground and neces- 
sity of endless penalty ; but, conversely, they give the fact of end- 
less penalty, and with this, as an inevitable implication id view oi 
the character of the divine Ruler, its justice and necessity. And we 
add nothing to the certainty or proof of endless penalty by assum- 
ing that it is a necessity simply from the demerit of sin. Nor do 
we in the least abate the force of its Scripture proof as a fact — the 
only real proof in the case — by a denial of its absolute necessity 
simply to that demerit. 



ANALYTICALLY TESTED. 167 

7. Elements of Punitive Satisfaction. — Divine justice, 
traced to its only satisfiable form as a punitive disposi- 
tion or obligation in God, has, apart from a salutary 
rectoral influence, only two supposable elements of sat- 
isfaction in the execution of penalty: one, in the mere 
suffering inflicted; the other, in the punishment of sin. 
The two are clearly separable, at least in thought, and 
together cover the whole case. There is no other ele- 
ment of such satisfaction. 

8. No Satisfaction in Mere Suffering. — The first is, 
of course, excluded. We could not say that it never 
had any place in religious sentiment or opinion. It 
would be none the less reprobate on that account. And 
only a fanatical dogmatist, with the temper of an in- 
quisitor and a morbidity of the moral nature, could 
understanding^ give it a place either in his conscience 
or creed. Any pleasure of any community or officer of 
the law simply in the sufferings of a criminal is a cruel- 
ty and a sin. And no place should be given to the no- 
tion of such a fact in God. As a God of love, without 
pleasure in the death of the wicked, he punishes no sin- 
ner without pity for his sufferings. It is impossible, 
therefore, that he should find satisfaction in his suffer- 
ings simply. 

9. Only Satisfaction in Punishing Sin. — Is there a 
satisfaction of divine justice in the punishment of sin? 
Yes; and we so answer without any hesitation. It is 
realized in a punitive disposition of justice. But this 
is far short of the doctrine of Satisfaction in the asser- 
tion that such satisfaction must be had. On this posi- 
tion it fails, as we have previously shown. But, further, 



168 Theory of Satisfaction 

while there is a satisfaction of divine justice in the 
punishment of sin — sin with its turpitude and demerit — 
the satisfaction is realized only therein. It is not, else, 
possible. Take away the conditioning facts of sin, and 
only the suffering remains with justice. But in this it 
can find no pleasure. 

10. Satisfaction by Substitution Impossible. — The 
atonement is in the satisfaction of justice by penal 
substitution. This is a vital principle in the theory. 
There is no atonement without this satisfaction; nor 
can there be any. So the deepest principles of the 
theory determine. 

It is entirely truthful, and not uncharitable, to say 
that here Satisfactionists themselves find no little per- 
plexity. Indeed, it would be a marvelous fact if they 
did not. And the vacillations of opinion and diversi- 
ties of view which the history of the doctrine records, 
bear ample testimony to this perplexity. 1 

The effect of the imputation of sin to Christ, and the 
nature and degree of his penal sufferings, are questions 
entering deeply into the difficulties of the subject. Did 
imputation carry over sin, with its turpitude and de- 
merit, or only its guilt to him? Did he suffer, instead 
of the elect, the same punishment which, otherwise, 
they must have suffered? Did he endure peoal suffer 
ing equal in amount, though differing in kind, to the 
merited punishment of the redeemed? Did ne suffer 
an equivalent punishment, less in amount but of high- 
er value, and thus a penal equivalent with justice? Did 

1 Prof. Bruce: "The Humiliation of Christ," pp. 378-384, 488-492; 
'Methodist Quarterly Review," July, 1846, pp. 403-410. 



Analytically Tested. 169 

he suffer the torment of the finally lost? Was his 
punishment potentially or intensively eternal? Such 
questions have been asked and answered affirmatively; 
though a negative is now mostly given to those of more 
extreme import. The boldness of earlier expositors is 
mainly avoided in the caution of the later. The former 
are more extravagant; the latter, less consistent. But 
the theory, in every phase of it, asserts the just punish- 
ment of sin in Christ; and, therefore, asserts or implies 
all that is requisite to such punishment. A denial of 
any such requisite is suicidal. 

In denying the possible satisfaction of a purely retrib- 
utive justice by a substitute in penalty, we are content 
to make the issue with the more moderate and carefully 
guarded position of Satisfactionists. This is but polem- 
ical fairness, as such is now the more common position. 

i. The Satisfaction Necetsary. — The necessary satis- 
faction of justice, as maintained in this theory, respects 
not merely a punitive disposition in God, but specially 
and chiefly an obligation of his justice to punish sin 
according to its demerit, and on that ground. And it 
is because the punishment of sin is a necessity in the 
rectitude of divine justice, that the only possible atone- 
ment is by penal substitution. 

This position is so important in the present question, 
that we should have the views of leading Satisfactionists 
respecting it. " The law of God, which includes a pen- 
alty as well as precepts, is in both a revelation of the 
nature of God. If the precepts manifest his holiness, 
the penalty as clearly manifests his justice. If the one 
is immutable, so also is the other. The wages of sin is 



i70 Theory of Satisfaction 

death. Death is what is due to it in justice, and what, 
without injustice, cannot he withheld from it."' "Jus- 
tice is a form of moral excellence. It belongs to the 
nature of God. It demands the punishment of sin. If 
sin he pardoned, it can he pardoned in consistency with 
the divine justice only on the ground of a forensie 
penal satisfaction." 2 "The Scriptures, however, as- 
sume that if a man sins he must die. On this assump- 
tion all their representations and arguments are founded. 
Hence the plan of salvation which the Bible reveals 
supposes that the justice of God, which renders the 
punishment of sin necessary, has been satisfied." 3 

The position maintained in these citations is clearly 
given, and fully agrees with our statement. From the 
nature of justice the punishment of sin is necessary. 
The obligation of justice is such that any omission of 
punishment would be an act of injustice. Thus, from 
the very nature of divine justice, the necessary punish- 
ment of sin is deduced as a consequence. Justice is as 
essential and immutable in God as any other attribute; 
therefore he must punish sin according to its desert, 
and on that ground. Thus his justice binds him to the 
infliction of merited punishment upon sin, just as other 
moral perfections bind him to holiness, goodness, truth. 

We may give additional authorities. "But again, 
concerning this justice, another question arises, Whether 
it be natural to God, or an essential attribute of the divine 
nature — that is to say, such that the existence of sin 
being admitted, God must necessarily exercise it, be- 

1 Dr. Hodge: "Systematic Theology," vol. i, p. 423. 
1 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 488. " Ibid., vol. ii, p. 492. 



Analytically Tested. 171 

cause it supposes in him a constant immutable will to 
punish sin, so that while he acts consistently with his 
nature he cannot do otherwise than punish and avenge 
it — or whether it be a free act of the divine will, which 
he may exercise at pleasure ? " ' This is submitted as 
a question, There are really two questions ; but we 
are concerned simply with the fact that Owen main 
tains the position of the former : and we are now con- 
cerned with this only, in its relation to penal substitu- 
tion. It asserts a necessity in the very nature of God 
for the punishment of sin simply as such ; a necessity, 
not from the domination of a punitive disposition, but 
from the requirement of judicial rectitude. 

"God is determined, by the immutable holiness of 
his nature, to punish all sin because of its intrinsic guilt 
or demerit; the effect produced on the moral universe 
being incidental as an end." 2 " Law has no option. 
Justice has but one function. The law itself is under 
law; that is, it is under the necessity of its own nature; 
and, therefore, the only possible way whereby a trans- 
gressor can escape the penalty of law, is for a substi- 
tute to endure it for him." 3 Here, again, we have tho 
same doctrine of an immutable obligation of divine jus- 
tice to punish sin, and none the less in the absence of 
every other reason than its own demerit. We here 
make no issue with the doctrine, but, as before noted, 
give it prominence on account of its vital logical con- 
nection with the doctrine of penal substitution. 

1 Owen: "Works," (Goold's,) vol. x, p. 505. 
9 Dr A A Hodge : " The Atonement," p. 53. 
8 Dr. Shedd: "Theological Essays," p. 28*7- 



172 Theory of Satisfaction 

ii. The Substitution Maintained. — There is also a 
vital logical connection between the imputation of sin 
to Christ and his penal substitution in atonement. In 
any proper treatment of the question the two facts 
must be in scientific accordance. And we have, with 
the carefully guarded doctrine of substitution, an 
equally cautious exposition of the imputation of sip to 
Christ. In such exposition, sin is treated analytically, 
not as a concrete whole. This is necessary to the mod- 
eration of the theory maintained. For to treat sin as 
a whole, and to allege its imputation to Christ and just 
punishment in him, is to involve the facts of the more 
extravagant theory. Guilt is distinguished from the at- 
tributes of turpitude, criminality, demerit, and claimed 
to be separable from sin in the deeper sense, both in 
thought and fact. It is freely admitted that the trans- 
ference and substitutional punishment of sin in the 
former sense is an impossibility; but it is fully claimed 
that guilt — the amenability of sin to the penalty of 
justice — could be transferred to Christ and justly pun- 
ished in him. 

We shall give this view from Dr. Charles Hodge. 
It has no better authority. " By guilt, many insist on 
meaning personal criminality and ill desert; and by 
punishment, evil inflicted on the ground of such per- 
sonal demerit. In these senses of the words the doo- 
trine of satisfaction and vicarious punishment would, 
indeed, involve an impossibility. . . . And if punishment 
means evil inflicted on the ground of personal demerit, 
then it is a contradiction to say that the innocent can 
be punished. But if guilt expresses only the relation 



Analytically Tested. 173 

of sin to justice, and is the obligation under t\ nich the 
sinner is placed to satisfy its demands, then there is 
nothing . . . which forbids the idea that this obligation 
may, on adequate grounds, be transferred from one to 
another, or assumed by one in the place of others." 1 
The omission cannot, in the least, affect the sense of 
the author. 

Leading facts are clearly given in the passage cited. 
One is, that moral character is absolutely untransfera- 
ble; another, that if punishment is a judiciil infliction 
upon the ground of personal demerit, the satisfaction 
of justice by penal substitution is impossible. Hence 
the distinction of sin into personal demerit and guilt, 
and the assumption that the latter, as the legal amena- 
bility of sin, could be transferred to Christ, and pun- 
ished in him in fulfillment of the punitive obligation 
of justice. 

Hi, No Answer to the Necessity. — We now have the 
facts respecting the alleged necessity for the punish- 
ment of sin, and also the facts of penal substitution as 
meeting that necessity. Do the latter answer to the 
requirements of the former ? Does the penal substitu- 
tion, maintained, fulfill the alleged absolute obligation 
of justice to punish sin according to its demerit? 
There is no such answer or fulfillment. So we affirm, 
and proceed to the proof. 

ITie analytic treatment of sin is entirely proper if it 
be remembered that such treatment is in thought only. 
And we may distinguish between the demerit and the 
guilt of sin, using the former term in the sense of its 

1 " Systematic Theology," vol ii, p. 632. 
12 



174 Theory of Satisfaction 

intrinsic evil, and the latter in the sense of its amena- 
bility to retributive justice. In the former sense, we 
have sin in the violation of obligation; in the latter, 
under judicial treatment. Is such distinction a sufli 
cient ground for the more moderate theory of substitu- 
tional punishment constructed upon it ? If so sufficient, 
will such substitution answer to the absolute necessity 
for the punishment of sin which the theory asserts ? 

It should here be specially noted that the principles 
of the theory are not even modified, much less surren- 
dered. They are still asserted and held in all their 
integrity and strength as the very necessity for an 
atonement, and as determinative of its nature in the 
substitutional punishment of sin. We have previously 
seen what these principles are. 1 And they are insep- 
arable from the doctrine of Satisfaction. We have 
also given citations from leading authors in the un- 
qualified assertion of an absolute necessity for the pun- 
ishment of sin. 2 Advocates of the more moderate 
theory of imputation and penal substitution are no 
exception. All agree in the obligation of divine jus- 
tice to punish sin according to its demerit, and on that 
ground. But it is denied that the turpitude and de- 
merit of sin can be transferred to Christ. All that is 
claimed, or even admitted to be so transferred, is the 
guilt of sin ; guilt as an amenability to the retribution 
of justice. Is such a substitution the merited punish- 
ment of sin ? 

Nothing could be punished in Christ which was not 
transferred to him, and in some proper sense made his. 
1 In IV of this chapter. * In 10, t, of this section. 



Analytically Tested. 175 

This we regard as apodictic. Hence if sin, with its 
demerit, could not, as now admitted, be put upon Christ 
by imputation, no punishment which he suffered fell 
upon such demerit, or intrinsic evil of sin. And we 
think it impossible to show how sin is punished accord- 
ing to its demerit, and on that ground, in the totai 
absence of such demerit from the substitute in punish- 
ment. With the admissions of the theory, its only 
resource is with guilt as a distinct fact of sin. If guilt, 
as the amenability of sin to the penalty of justice, is 
separable from sin, and as a distinct fact transferable 
to Christ — and if his punishment, as so constituted 
guilty, is the punishment of sin according to its de- 
merit and on that ground — then the penal substitution 
maintained answers to the asserted absolute necessity 
for the punishment of sin. If any one of these suppos- 
itive facts fail the theory, then the theory itself inev* 
itably fails. 

Guilt, as distinctively treated in this theory, arises in 
the relation of sin to divine justice, and as an obliga- 
tion of sin to suffer the merited penalty of justice. It 
is so defined and discriminated from the turpitude of 
sin in the carefully exact statement recently cited from 
Dr. Charles Hodge. He makes the same distinction 
elsewhere. 1 But guilt, considered as apart from sin, 
exists only in conception, not in objective reality. It 
may be said that it becomes a concrete fact in Christ 
by imputation to him. Then the result is a guilty 
Christ. But guilty of what ? Not of sin, for that is 
not transferred to him, nor in any proper sense made 
1 u Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 189. 



176 Theory of Satisfaction 

his. Guilty of guilt, we may suppose. For as guilt is 
the only thing imputed, and the imputation makes him 
guilty, we find not any better expression of the fact in 
the case. There seems a harshness even in such an 
expression; yet it is mollified by the fact, that at most 
Christ is guilty of only a conceptual guilt. 

But the original difficulty remains. Guilt, apart 
from sin, is still guilt in the abstract, and exists only 
in conception, as much so as roundness, concavity, red- 
ness. And how could such a conceptual guilt render 
Christ guilty, or constitute in him a just ground of 
punishment ? It were as easy to transform a cube into 
a globe by imputing sphericity to it. But is not guilt 
a reality? Certainly, and a terrible one; but only as a 
concrete fact of sin. And with the imputation of such 
an abstract guilt to Christ, while sin, with its turpitude 
and demerit, with all that is punishable and all that 
deserves to be punished left behind, how can the re- 
demptive suffering which he endured be the merited 
punishment of sin ? 

iv. No such Answer Possible. — Guilt cannot exist 
apart from sin. It is impossible by the very definition 
of it as the obligation of sin to the retribution of jus- 
tice. The necessary conjunction of facts is obvious 
On the one side is justice, with its precept and penalty , 
on the other, sin; hence, guilt. There is guilt, because 
justice asserts a penal claim upon sin. The demerit of 
sin, the intrinsic evil of sin, is the only ground of such 
a claim. Nothing but sin can be guilty, or render any 
one guilty. And there can no more be guilt apart from 
sin, than there can be extension without either substance 



Analytically Tested. 177 

or space. It is not in itself punishable, but simply the 
punitive amenability of sin to justice. It cannot, there- 
fore, be so put upon Christ as to render him punishable, 
unless the very sin is put upon him. But this is con- 
ceded to be impossible. 

Indeed, sin itself is a punishable reality only as a per 
sonal fact. In the last analysis only a person, only a 
sinful person, is punishable. We may here apply such 
a principle as we applied to justice as punitively satis- 
fiable. Such is no impersonal justice, or justice in gener- 
alized conception, but justice as a personal attribute. So, 
not any impersonal sin, or sin in generalized conception, 
but only a sinful person, is answerable to justice in pen- 
alty. Sin has no real existence apart from the agent in 
the sinning. The guilt of sin lies upon him, and can no 
more be put upon a substitute as a punitive desert than 
his sinful act can cease to be his and be made the sinful 
act of such substitute. 

But the principles of the Satisfaction scheme still 
remain, with the necessity for the punishment of sin ac- 
cording to its demerit, and on that ground. So imper- 
ative is this obligation, that any omission of such pun- 
ishment would be an injustice in God. With this the 
very masters in the theory fully agree. Indeed, there 
is no dissent. Is sin so punished in Christ ? It is not, 
even if we admit the separability of guilt and its trans- 
ference to Christ. Guilt is not sin. The scheme itself 
carefully discriminates the two. Such is its necessity, 
as it denies the transferableness of sin. For, other- 
wise, it has nothing which it may even claim to be 
transferred as the ground of merited punishment. By 



178 Theoet of Satisfaction. 

the alleged facts of the scheme, no penalty is inflicted 
upon sin. Yet its punishment is the asserted absolute 
requirement of moral rectitude in divine justice. And 
the conclusion is most certain, that the penal substitu- 
tion which the theory of Satisfaction holds can give no 
answer to the necessity for the punishment of sin which 
it asserts. 

11. The Theoi'y Self-destructive. — The necessary pun- 
ishment of sin and the nature of penal substitution, 
which the theory maintains and seeks to combine in 
the doctrine of Satisfaction, absolutely refuse all scien- 
tific fellowship. Yet the theory can neither dispense 
with the one nor so modify the other as to agree with 
it. The former is its very ground-principle, and there 
fore cannot be dispensed with. The necessary modifi- 
cation of the latter, in order to a scientific agreement 
with the former, would require a transference of the 
turpitude and demerit of sin to Christ; therefore such 
modification must be rejected. Consequently, whether 
there be or be not an absolute necessity for the punish 
ment of sin, the theory of Satisfaction is self-destrue 
tive. For with such a necessity, not only does the penaJ 
substitution maintained utterly fail to answer to its im 
perative requirement, but no possible substitution cac 
so answer. But without such a necessity for the pun 
ishment of sin, the theory is utterly groundless. There- 
fore, whether there be or be not the asserted necessity 
for the punishment of sin, the theory is self-destroyed 



Facts in Objection. 179 

VI. 
Facts op the Theory in Objection. 

Much has been anticipated which might have been 
arranged under objections. Yet much remains, but 
requiring only a brief treatment in view of previous 
discussions. 

1. The Punishment of Christ. — It is a weighty objec- 
tion to the theory under review that it makes the pun- 
ishment of Christ necessary to atonement. The pun- 
ishment is in satisfaction of justice. Its desert in him 
is imputed sin. Justice must punish sin: therefore it 
must punish sin in Christ as a substitute in atonement. 
There is no other possible atonement. 

But the imputation of sin has insuperable difficulties. 
This is especially true of its imputation to Christ. Such 
is the confession in the caution which discriminates be- 
tween sin and guilt, and admits only the latter in impu- 
tation. It shocks our moral reason to think of Christ 
as a sinner even by imputation. Yet such imputation 
is a nullity for all purposes of this theory, unless it 
makes our sins in some real sense his. For other- 
wise there can be no pretense even of their merited 
punishment in him. If the imputation of sin is in 
order to its just punishment, and sufficient for that 
end, really the view of Luther is none too strong: 
" For Christ is innocent as concerning his own person, 
and therefore he ought not to have been hanged upon 
a tree; but because, according to the law of Moses, 
every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore 
Christ also, according to the law, ought to be hanged; 



180 Theoet of Satisfaction. 

for he sustained the parson of a sinner and of a thief— 
not of one, but of all sinners and thieves." ' There is 
much more such, and some even worse. Others main- 
tain a like position, if not with the same boldness of 
utterance. It is only through such an imputation that 
justice could fulfill, by substitution, its asserted abso- 
lute obligation to punish sin according to its demerit. 

Such fatal implication is not avoided by the assump- 
tion of an imputation merely of guilt. It is still the 
guilt of sin, and renders Christ guilty in a sense that 
he may be justly punished. Nor are we confounding 
the discriminated reatus culpce and reatus poence of 
theologians; though the distinction is useless for the 
purpose of finding a guilt that may exist and be pun- 
ished apart from sin, and especially with the notion 
that sin is thereby punished. The guilt which answers 
to justice in penalty is the guilt of sin. If Christ so 
answered as a substitute for the elect, he must have 
been guilty of all their sins. Hence the theory under 
review should neither discard the bold utterances of 
Luther nor seek shelter under an utterly futile dis- 
tinction between sin and guilt. On any consistent sup- 
position it must hold Christ as guilty of all the sins 
which suffered their merited punishment in him. But 
he never could be so guilty: hence the doctrine of 
atonement which implies and requires such a fact can- 
not be the true doctrine. 

2. Redeemed Sinners Without Guilt. — The atone- 
ment of Satisfaction has this logical implication, that 
all for whom it is made are without guilt. Such 
1 Commentary on Galatians, chap. 3 : 13. 



Facts m Objection. 181 

an atonement is, by its very nature, a discharge from 
all amenability to the penalty of justice. Explicit 
statements of its leading advocates are in full accord 
with this position. Nor has such a consequence any 
avoidance by any real distinction between meritum 
culpa} and meritum poence. In any reality of such dis- 
tinction there may be personal demerit without legal 
guilt ; though we have denied, and do deny, to the 
theory under review the truth of the converse, that 
there may be such guilt without such demerit. But 
here we raise no question whether sinners, simply as 
redeemed, are still in the personal demerit of sin. Our 
position respects guilt as the amenability of sin to the 
penalties of justice, and asserts that, according to the 
atonement of Satisfaction, the elect for whom it is made 
are, in their whole life, and however wicked, entirely 
free from such guilt. There is for them neither ju- 
dicial condemnation nor liability to punishment. The 
penalties of justice, pending in the divine threatenings, 
have no imminence for them. 

The scheme ever asserts an absolute necessity for the 
punishment of sin. It equally asserts such a penal 
substitution of Christ in the place of the elect as fully 
satisfies the penal claim of justice against them. Thus 
justice fulfilled its own retributive obligation in the 
punishment of sin, just as though it had inflicted the 
merited penalty upon them. God has accepted the 
penal substitution for their own punishment. All is in 
strict accord with a covenant agreement between the 
Father and the Son, as the theory asserts. Now such 
an atonement, by its very nature, cancels all punitive 



182 Theory of Satisfaction. 

claim against the elect, and by immediate result for- 
ever frees them from all guilt as a liability to the pen- 
alty of sin. We know that such a consequence is de- 
nied, though we shall show that it is also fully asserted. 

It is attempted to obviate this consequence by a 
distinction between a pecuniary and a penal obligation : 
il Another important difference between pecuniary and 
penal satisfaction is, that the one ipso facto liberates. 
The moment the debt is paid the debtor is free, and 
that completely. No delay can be admitted, and no 
conditions can be attached to his deliverance. But in 
the case of a criminal, as he has no claim to have a 
substitute take his place, if one be provided, the terms 
on which the benefits of his substitution shall accrue to 
the principal are matters of agreement between the 
substitute and the magistrate who represents justice." ' 
Such a distinction will not accord with the penal sub- 
stitution of Christ. The ground-principle of the doc- 
trine is, that sin must be punished according to its de- 
merit, and on that ground ; must be, because of an im- 
mutable obligation of justice so f o punish it. Then by 
the penal substitution of Christ sin is so punished in 
him, and the obligation of justice fulfilled. Such are 
the facts of the doctrine. On the ground of such facts, 
a discharge must immediately follow upon such penal 
substitution, just as on the payment of a debt. 

So Dr. Hodge gives the facts in less than two pages 

in advance of the previous citation. " If the claims of 

justice are satisfied they cannot be again enforced. 

This is the analogy between the work of Christ and 

1 Dr. Hodge: "Systematic Theology," voL ii, pp. 410, 41L 



Facts in Objection. 183 

the payment of a debt. The point of agreement be- 
tween the two cases is not the nature of the satisfac- 
tion rendered, but one aspect of the effect produced. 
In both cases the persons for whom the satisfaction is 
made are certainly freed. Their exemption or deliver- 
ance is in both cases, and equally in both, a matter of 
justice." 1 We shall attempt no improvement here; 
for we can give neither a better statement of the facts 
in the case nor a better reply to the citation just before 
given from the same author. 

We may add a few authorities. " Will God punish 
sin twice, first in the person of the Surety, and then in 
the persons themselves, in whose place he stood? It 
would be acknowledged, without a dissenting voice, 
that in any other case this would be a manifest injus- 
tice. But * is there unrighteousness with God ? God 
forbid: the Judge of all the earth will do right.'" 2 
" The death of Christ being a legal satisfaction for sin, 
all for whom he died must enjoy the remission of their 
offenses. It is as much at variance with strict justice 
or equity that any for whom Christ has given satisfac- 
t ion should continue under condemnation, as that they 
should have been delivered from guilt without any 
satisfaction being given for them at all." s A Satis 
factionist could hardly put the case more strongly. 
" For if, in consequence of his suretyship, the debt has 
been transferred to Christ and by him discharged, every 
one must see that it has been taken away from the 

1 " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 412. See also pp. 482, 487, 494 

• Dr. John Dick: "Theology," vol. ii, p. 556. 

• Dr. Symington • " Atonement and Intercession," p. 190. 



184 Theory op Satisfaction. 

primary debtors, so that payment cannot be demanded 
of them. They must forever afterward remain free, 
absolved from all obligation to punishment." 1 

Such authorities may suffice for our position In- 
deed, we did not really need any, as such freedom from 
guilt is in the inevitable logic of an atonement by penal 
substitution. But such moral support should silence all 
cavil. 

The position is sometimes taken, that, in a penal sat- 
isfaction, the actual forgiveness is subject to such time 
and conditions as the sovereign authority may deter- 
mine. It cannot be maintained. Otherwise, all the 
reasonings in the above citations, and given from the 
very masters in this doctrine, are fallacious. It is over- 
thrown by the analogy of result between a pecuniary 
and a penal satisfaction. In the latter case, as in the 
former, the claim of the obligee is fully satisfied, and 
the discharge of the party in obligation must immedi- 
ately issue. The case can admit no delay and no con- 
ditions for the discharge. And no sin of the redeemed, 
once justly punished in Christ as an accepted substi- 
tute, can for an instant be answerable to justice in 
penalty, or in any sense be liable to punishment. The 
redeemed are without guilt. 

Is such a position in accord with the real fact in the 
case? Sin is sin, whenever and by whomsoever com- 
mitted. As such it has legal guilt as well as personal 
demerit. It is under judicial condemnation, and m 
peril of retribution. 

Such facts are in full accord with a common experi- 
1 Turrettin: " The Atonement of Christ," p. 146. 



Facts in Objection. 185 

ence of souls in coming into the spiritual life. In such 
an experience there is more than a deep sense of per- 
sonal demerit; there is also a deep sense of peril in the 
apprehension of divine penalty. Many a soul just on 
the verge of the new life is full of trembling in this ap- 
prehension. Really, there is no cause, if the true doc- 
trine of atonement is in the just punishment of sin by 
substitution. But there is cause in every such case, 
and for the reason of guilt and judicial condemnation. 
The trembling apprehension is in the recognition of a 
terrible reality. Among the eminent for piety, and, 
therefore, certainly of the elect and redeemed, are some 
once very wicked. Were they then without guilt or 
judicial condemnation? Was there for them no immi- 
nence of penal retribution? Was it so with Paul, and 
Augustine, and John Newton, and many others such? 
If so, there was a deep deception in their profoundest 
religious consciousness. And it is a mistake ever aris- 
ing under the immediate work of the Holy Spirit in 
conviction for sin. As under his revealing light and 
convincing power the soul awakes, it not only feels 
within the deep evil of sin, but even sees without the 
threatening penalty of divine justice. And there is no 
self-deception in such cases. 

And what of the divine threatenings against all sin 
and all sinners? Have they no meaning for the re- 
deemed? Or are they like the overtures of grace which 
a limited atonement freely makes to all, but with real 
meaning for only the elect and redeemed part? On 
the doctrine of Satisfaction, such divine threatenings 
signal no imminence of divine wrath for the redeemed- 



186 Theory of Satisfaction. 

And what of all the Scripture terms of forgiveness 
and remission of sins? Have they no meaning of an 
actual discharge from guilt and penalty in the hour of 
an actual salvation? Or is their full meaning in a 
declaration simply of a discharge long before actually 
achieved through penal substitution? When Jesus 
said, as often to one or another, "Thy sins are forgiven 
thee," was it no actual forgiveness then granted? 
Without such a forgiveness, there is no pertinence in 
the proof which he gave of a "power on earth to for- 
give sins." 1 

A doctrine of atonement encountering such facts as 
we have given, and facts so decisive against it, cannot 
be the true doctrine. 

3. A Limited Atonement. — The theory has this con- 
sequence, and avows it. Such an atonement is in its 
own nature saving. The salvation of all whom Christ 
represents in his mediatorial work must issue. "The 
advocates of a limited atonement reason from the effect 
to the cause." 9 Dr. Schaff is entirely correct in this, as 
might be shown by many examples. Nor is there a 
contrary instance. But the reasoning is logically valid 
for a limited atonement only on the ground that such 
an atonement is necessarily saving. For thus only is 
the fact of a limited actual salvation conclusive of a 
limited atonement. Hence Calvinistic divines who hold 
a general atonement, consistently reject the doctrine of 
Satisfaction. Lutheranism, in holding both, is utterly 
unscientific. 

1 Matt. 9 : 6. 

* Dr. Schaff: "Creeds of Christendom," vol. i, p. 621. 



Facts m Objection. 187 

But the full force of the objection to the Satisfaction 
scheme, from the fact that it involves the consequence 
of a limited atonement, cannot be given here. It lies 
in the Scripture fact of universality in the atonement, 
which will be treated in its place. 1 For the present we 
name it as fatal to the theory of Satisfaction. If, in 
the divine destination, the atonement is really for all, 
as we shall prove it to be, then this theory cannot be 
the true one. 

4. Element of ■ Commutative Justice. — The scheme is 
complicated with commutative justice. We know well 
the vigorous denial. But denial does not void a log- 
ical implication. Commutative justice has its principle 
as well as its usual commodities. In any obligation 
the principle claims the sum due, either in the identical 
thing or in its equivalent in value. One or the other 
it must have. It freely admits substitution. A surety 
or proxy may satisfy the claim as well as the debtor 
himself. One thing may be accepted in the stead of 
another, if its equivalent in value. 

Such is the principle, and such are the characteristic 
facts, in the doctrine of Satisfaction. Justice requires 
the punishment of sin as a rightful claim. It will ac- 
cept a substitute in penalty, and also a less punishment. 
if of such higher quality as to be of equal value. Thus 
in principle and characteristic facts it is at one with 
commutative justice. The actual and necessary dis- 
charge of the redeemed from all amenability to the 
penalty of justice, on account of the satisfaction of its 
claim by penal substitute, is a legitimate sequence of 
1 Chapter xii. 



188 Theory of Satisfaction. 

the same principle. So is a limited atonemeDt in view 
of a limited actual salvation. 

Nor is there any avoidance of such complication by 
an alleged difference between a pecuniary and a penal 
claim — one on the property of the debtor, and the 
other on his person. Both are personal to the debtor 
— one for satisfaction in his property, and the other for 
satisfaction in his punishment. The likeness still re- 
mains. There is a oneness of the two. The theory is 
seriously complicated with commutative justice. We 
do not wonder at the vigorous resistance to such an 
implication, though not a few avow all that really be- 
longs to it. A measure of virtual commercial barter in 
the atonement degrades it. 



Preliminary Facts. 189 



CHAPTER VIII. 

GOVERNMENTAL THEORY. 

rpHIS theory also has already come into view more 
than once. But it is proper to treat it more directly 
and fully, as we have the other two leading theories. 
Yet the discussion will require the less elaboration, as 
many of the principles and facts appertaining to the 
theory have previously been given, and more or less con- 
sid er ed. It mainly concerns us now to bring them togeth- 
er, and to set them in the order of a proper method, and 
in the light of a more exact and definitive statement. 

We have indicated our acceptance of this theory as 
the true theory of atonement. But we so accept it in 
what really constitutes it a theory, and not in any par- 
ticular exposition as hitherto given: much less in its 
diversities as it stands in the history of doctrinal the- 
ology. It has not always been fortunate in its exposi- 
tion. It was not entirely so in the beginning. Its car- 
dinal principles have been clearly enough given. With 
these given, a true construction of the doctrine should 
follow. Such, however, has not always been the case. 
The treatment has often been deficient in analysis or 
scientific method. Alien elements have been retained ; 
vital facts omitted or wrongly placed. We hold the 
doctrine as we shall construct and maintain it. As 
such, it is the doctrine of a real and necessary atone- 
ment in Christ. It denies to the Moral theory a right- 
13 



190 Governmental Theory. 

f ul position as such. And as the true doctrine is really 
with the theory of Satisfaction or the Governmental, 
the error of the former concludes the truth of the lat- 
ter. Tt will answer to all the requirements of Scripture 
interpretation, and to the profoundest necessity for an 
atonement. 

I. 

Preliminary Facts. 

The discussion of the nature of the atonement as 
represented in the Governmental theory will run through 
this chapter and the next succeeding one. It will also 
be involved in the last one — universality of the atone- 
ment. The question of extent is more than a question 
of fact; it concerns the doctrine also. With this Sat- 
isfactionists fully agree. And the next chapter, while 
given to the elements of sufficiency in the redemptive 
mediation of Christ, treats them in view of the princi- 
ples of atonement, and thus involves its nature. 

1. Substitutional Atwiement. — The sufferings of 
Christ are an atonement for sin by substitution, in the 
sense that they were intentionally endured for sinners 
under judicial condemnation, and for the sake of their 
forgiveness. They are an atonement for sin in the 
sense that they render its forgiveness consistent with 
the divine justice. They provide for such consistency, 
in the sense that justice none the less fulfills its rectoral 
office in the interest of moral government. Such office 
of justice is so fulfilled in the sense that, in granting 
forgiveness only on the ground of such a substitution 
in atonement, the honor and authority of the divine 
Ruler, together with the rights and interests of his 



Preliminary Facts. 191 

subjects, are equally maintained as by the infliction of 
merited penalty upon sin. Such facts, here merely stated, 
will have their unfolding in the progress of discussion. 

2. Conditional /Substitution. — The forgiveness of sin 
has a real conditionality. The fact is given in the 
clearest utterances of Scripture. It is given in the fact 
of demerit for refusing the overtures of redemptive 
grace. It is also given as the only explanation of the 
fact that, with a real atonement for all, some perish. 
An atonement for all by absolute substitution would 
inevitably achieve the salvation of all. The logic of 
the case gives us this consequence. Satisfactionists 
freely give it. Their soteriology requires it. It must 
be so. Therefore a universal atonement, with the fact 
of a limited actual salvation, is conclusive of a real 
conditionality in its saving grace. It follows, inevi- 
tably, that such an atonement is conditional or pro- 
visory, not immediately and necessarily, saving. 

The substitution of Christ in atonement for sin must 
be of a nature consistent with these facts. In such a 
substitution as would make his vicarious suffering the 
merited punishment of sin, all for whom he so suffers 
must be discharged from guilt ; must be, even on the 
ground of justice. This we have shown before. We 
should thus have an absolute substitution in penalty, 
together with a provisory atonement and a conditional 
forgiveness. But such facts have no scientific accord- 
ance, and it is impossible to combine them in a doctrine 
of atonement. 

3. Substitution in Suffering. — The substitution of 
Christ must be of a nature agreeing with the provisory 



192 Governmental Theort. 

character of the atonement. It could not, therefore, 
be a substitution in penalty as the merited punishment 
of sin, for such an atonement is absolute. The substi- 
tution, therefore, is in suffering, without the penal ele- 
ment. This agrees with the nature of the atonement 
as a moral support of justice in its rectoral office, ren- 
dering forgiveness consistent with the interest of moral 
government. 

Nor could the sufferings of Christ have been, in an} 
strict or proper sense, a punishment. Demerit, the 
only ground of punishment, is personal to the actual 
sinner, and without possible transference. 1 We have 
seen the futility of attempting the transference of 
guilt without sin. The result of such a fact would 
leave the sinful guiltless and make the sinless guilty. 
On such a possibility guilt has no necessary connec- 
tion with sin : there is no such possibility. And the 
substitution of Christ in suffering will satisfy all the 
requirements of the redemptive economy. 

Nor have the vicarious sufferings of Christ, without 
the penal element, less value for any legitimate pur- 
pose or attainable end of substitutional atonement. 
Such an atonement has great ends in the manifestation 
of the divine holiness, justice, and love; of the evil of 
sin , and the certainty of penalty, except as forgive- 
ness may be obtained in the grace of redemption. But 
for all such ends the theory of vicarious punishment 
has no advantage above that of vicarious suffering. 

If the high assertion be true, that God is under obli- 

1 Dr. Whedon: "Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xix, p. 252; also, "Com- 
mentary," 2 Cor. 5: 21. 



Preliminary Facts. 198 

gation to punish sin as it deserves, and solely on the 
ground of its demerit, then there is a requirement of 
justice not fulfilled by vicarious suffering in atonement. 
But no more is it in the alleged mode of substitutional 
punishment; and for reasons previously given. 1 Impu 
tation carried over no sin to Christ. Hence no sin was 
punished when he suffered. 

The punishment of sin does manifest the divine holi- 
ness and justice. But this fact gives no advantage to 
the scheme of substitutional punishment ; and for the 
reason that sin is not punished in Christ. If he is pun- 
ished, it is in absolute freedom from all demerit of sin, 
And the recoil of so many minds from such a fact, as 
one of injustice, is not without reason. 

Punishment does declare the evil of sin and the cer- 
tainty of penalty; but only on the condition that the 
penal infliction fall upon the demerit of sin. But here, 
again, the scheme of Satisfaction is denied all advan- 
tage, because, according to its own admissions, such is 
not the fact. And the substitution of Christ in suffer- 
ing, as the only and necessary ground of forgiveness, 
will answer for these great ends as fully as such alleged 
substitution in punishment. 

A ground of forgiveness provided in a divine sacri- 
fice infinitely great is a marvelous manifestation of the 
divine love; but that sacrifice, in every admissible or 
possible element, is as great in the mode of vicarious 
suffering as in that of vicarious punishment. The gift 
of the Father is the same. Nor are the sufferings of 
the Son less, or other, in any possible element. In 
1 Chap, vii, V, 10 



194 Governmental Theoby. 

neither case could there be any remorse or sense of 
personal demerit. He could have no sense of the di- 
vine wrath against himself. Nor could there be such 
a divine wrath. The scheme of Satisfaction will so 
deny. It would repel any accusation that even by 
implication it attributes to the Father any wratlifnl 
bearing toward the Son. " Christ was at no time the 
object of his Father's personal displeasure, but suffered 
only the signs — the effect, not the affection — of divine 
anger." > The incarnation, the self -divestment of a 
rightful glory in equality with the Father, the assump- 
tion, instead, of the form of a servant in the likeness 
of men, are all the same on the one theory as on the 
other. There is the same infinite depth of condescen- 
sion. Equal sorrow and agony force the earnest prayer 
and bloody sweat in Gethsemane, and the bitter outcry 
on Calvary. 

Any question, therefore, between these two theo- 
ries respecting the sufferings of Christ, concerns their 
nature, and not either their measure or redemptive 
office. And in these facts — in the divine compassion 
which embraced a perishing world, in the infinite sac- 
rifice of that compassion, in the gracious purpose and 
provision of that sacrifice — is the manifestation of the 
divine love. "Herein is love." "God so loved the 
world." And to call his sufferings penal — or had they 
been so in fact— would add nothing either to the 
measure or manifestation of the divine love in human 
redemption. 
Yet, without the penal element in the sufferings of 
1 Prol Bruce: "The Humiliation of Christ," p. 381. 



Preliminaey Facts. 195 

Christ, we may attribute to them a peculiar depth and 
tone arising out of their relation to sin in their redemp- 
tive office, and find the explanation in the facts of psy- 
chology. It is no presumption so to apply such facts. 
The human nature was present as a constituent element 
in the person of Christ. And there is no more reason 
to deny its influence upon his consciousness than to 
deny such influence to his divine nature. So far, there- 
fore, as his consciousness shared in experiences through 
the human nature, they would be kindred to our own. 

We have our own experiences in the clear appre- 
hension of justice, and sin, and penalty. The feelings 
hence arising would be far deeper on hearing a verdict 
of guilt and judgment pronounced upon the criminal. 
The higher and purer our spiritual nature, still the 
deeper would these feelings be. And could one with 
the highest attainable moral perfection redeem a crim- 
inal simply by vicarious suffering, his inevitable con- 
tact with sin, in the realizations of a most vivid appre- 
hension of its demerit and punishment, would give a 
peculiar cast and depth to his sufferings. 

So was it in the redemptive sufferings of Christ, but 
in an infinitely deeper sense. In such redemption he 
must have had in clearest view the divine holiness, and 
justice, and wrath; the turpitude and demerit of sin; 
j jid the terribleness of its merited penalty. Only in 
such a view could he comprehend his own work or sac- 
rifice in atonement for sin. And, remembering the 
moral perfection of his nature, and that his contact was 
with the sins of all men in the full apprehension of their 
demerit, of the divine wrath against them, of the terri 



196 GOVEKNMENTAL THEORY. 

bleness of their just doom, and that his own blood and 
life, in the conscious purpose of their offering, were a 
sacrifice in atonement for all, we have reason enough 
for their peculiar tone and awful depth. 

It is urged that penal substitution is necessary, not 
only for the satisfaction of justice, but also " for satis- 
fying the demands of a guilty conscience, which mere 
pardon never can appease." ! The connection holds the 
Rectoral atonement to be as powerless as the Moral 
scheme for the contentment of conscience. It cannot 
have rest, except with the merited punishment of sin. 
Therefore, in the case of forgiveness, such punishment 
must be endured by a substitute. 

We fully accept the fact of a deep sense of punitive 
demerit on account of sin in a truly awakened con- 
science. This feeling may be so strong as to result in 
a desire for punishment. There may even be some re- 
lief of conscience from the penal endurance. But such 
a feeling has respect simply to personal demerit, and 
can be appeased only through personal punishment — il 
punishment be really necessary to the appeasement. 

What is the law of pacification in substitutional pun- 
ishment ? We know not any. Nor can there be any, 
except such punishment be in relief of personal charac- 
ter. But this will not be claimed as possible. Further, 
it is claimed in behalf of atonement by penal substitu- 
tion, that, more than any thing else, it deepens th( 
sense of sin and personal demerit. But if its tendency 
is to the very state of mind involving the deepest ud- 

1 Dt. Hodge: "Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 626. See also 
Dr. Shedd: "Theological Essays," pp. 298, 299. 



Preliminary Facts. 197 

rest, it is impossible to see how it can be necessary to 
the pacification of the conscience. And if we can find 
rest only through merited punishment, personal or vi- 
carious, we shall never find it either in this world or in 
the next. 

All relief from the trouble and disquietude arising in 
tne sense of sin and guilt, must come in the forgiveness 
of sin. And to be complete, the forgiveness must be 
so full and gracious as to draw the soul into a restful 
assurance of the loving favor of the forgiving Father. 
It is no discredit to infinite grace to say, that the sense 
of demerit for sins committed can never be eradicated, 
not even in heaven; though the remorse of sin may be 
taken away here and now. But even such a sense of 
demerit tends to a measure of unrest forever, and, 
apart from every other law, would so result. There is 
still a law of complete rest — such as we have just given. 
The true rest will come in a full forgiveness, in the 
assurances of the divine friendship and love, and in a 
grateful, joyous love answering to the infinite grace of 
salvation. And the atonement in vicarious suffering an- 
swers for such facts as fully as that in penal substitution 

Nor has the atonement in vicarious suffering any 
tendency or liability to Antinomianism. From its 
own nature it is a provisory or conditional ground, 
not a causal ground of forgiveness and salvation. 
From such an atonement no license to sin can be le- 
gitimately taken. Antinomianism is utterly outlawed. 
We know very well that Satisfactionists very generally 
discard this heresy. They will deny that it has any 
logical connection with their theory. Yet in the his- 



198 Governmental Theory. 

tory of doctrines Antinomianism stands with the sote« 
riology of Satisfaction. Nor does it seem remote from 
a logical sequence to such an atonement. There is 
substituted punishment, and also substituted righteous- 
ness. Whatever penalty we deserve Christ bears: 
whatever obedience we lack he fulfills. He takes our 
place under both penalty and precept. What he does 
and suffers in our stead answer for us in the require- 
ments of justice and law as though personally our own. 
In view of such facts, Antinomianism is far worse in its 
doctrine than in its logic. But the atonement in Christ 
does not make void the law. Nor has the true doctrine 
any liability to such a perversion. The atonement in 
vicarious suffering has this advantage, and is thereby 
commended as the true one. 

4. The Grotian Theory. — The theory of atonement 
now under discussion is often called the Edwardean, 
and also the New England, theory. It has the former 
title from the younger Edwards, who contributed 
much, and among the first, to its American formation. 
Some find, or think they find, its seed-thoughts in 
the writings of the elder Edwards, and hence so style 
it. But Satisfactionists deny this source, and earnestly 
disclaim for him all responsibility for the doctrine.' 
It is called the New England theory because spe- 
cially elaborated by leading New England divines 

1 Prof. Smeaton: " The Apostles' Doctrine of Atonement," p. 536. 

8 " The Atonement. Discourses and Treatises by Edwards, Smal 
ley, Maxcy, Emmons, Griffin, Burge, and Weeks." With an Intro- 
ductory Essay by Edwards A. Park. In this large volume Prof. 
Park has collected the best New England literature on this subject 
D7is own Introductory Essay adds much to the value of the book. 



Preliminary Facts. 199 

But priority and the true originality are with Q-rotius. 
Nor can we accord to these very learned and able di- 
vines an independent origination of the doctrine. 
They could not have been ignorant of the work of 
Grotius, nor that in the deeper principles they were at 
one with him. With differences respecting many 
points, there is yet such an agreement. 1 

By common consent, and quite irrespective of all 
dissent from him in doctrine, Grotius was a man of 
very extraordinary ability and learned attainment. 
The literary achievements of his youth are a wonder.* 
Nor did his mature life falsify the promise of such 
marvelous precocity. His great abilities and vast 
learning gave him eminence in science, in philosophy, 
in statesmanship, in law, in theology. He wrote many 
books, but to only one of which have we any occasion 
for reference. 

In theology he was an Arminian, and at a time when 
he, with many others, suffered no little persecution. 
But all the tendencies of his mind, as well as the logic 
of his reason, gave him preference for this system as in 
comparison with the Calvinism of Gomarus or the Synod 
of Dort. There was no narrowness in the cast of his 
soul. On all great questions his views were at once 
broad and profound. On the rights of conscience, and 
}f religious and political freedom, he was very far in 
advance of his time. "And, indeed, the Arminian doc- 
trine, which, discarding the Calvinistic dogma of abso- 

1 W. F. Warren, D.D. : " The Edwardean Theory of Atonement," 

Methodist Quarterly Bevieiv, July, 1860. 
a "New American Cyclopaedia," 1859, Art. Grotius. 



200 Governmental Theoby. 

lute predestination, teaches that man is free to accept 
or to refuse grace, could not fail to suit a mind such as 
that of Grotius." ' Yet he was no latitudinarian; nor 
was his theology a matter of mere sentiment. It was 
the fruit of profound study. And the more protracted 
and the profounder his study the more thorough was 
his Arminianism. 

Grotius held firmly the fact of an atonement in Christ. 
In this faith he undertook its discussion, having in 
special view its defense against the assumptions and 
objections of the Socinian scheme. Such is the import 
of the title which he gave to his work. 8 It is not clear 
that he began the discussion with full forecast of the 
outcome. He probably had no new theory previously 
constructed or even outlined in thought. On the au- 
thority of Scripture he was sure of an atonement in the 
blood of Christ. He was sure, therefore, of the error 
of the Socinian scheme, and of the fallacy of its objec- 
tions against this fact. But in its defense he opened 
his own way to the new theory ever since rightfully 
connected with his name. 

It is rarely the case that the originator of a new 
theory, especially in a sphere of profound and broadly 
related doctrinal truth, clears it of all alien elements, 
or achieves completeness in scientific construction. 
Such, on this subject, is the fact with Anselm. It it 
also true of Grotius. We do not, therefore, accept all 

1 M'Clintock & Strong: " Cyclopaedia," vol. iii, p. 1017. 

'"Defensio Fidei Catholic* de Satisfactione Christi Adversus F. 
Socinum." Translated by the Rev. Frank A. Foster, in " Bibliotheca 
Sacra," January and April, 1879. 



PRELIMmAKY FACTS. 201 

his positions. Some are not essential to his doctrine. 
In others he is not entirely self-consistent. We ac- 
cept what really constitutes his theory, and have little 
concern for any thing else. He had an equal right 
with Anselm to construct a doctrine of atonement, and 
achieved a higher scientific result. Hence the history 
of doctrines records less modification in his theory 
than in the Anselmic. We have no occasion either 
closely to review or to defend him. This would only 
anticipate much of the discussion assigned to the pres- 
ent chapter. It would be easy to recite reviews from 
various authors, and to give references to many others. 
But their very commonness to discussions of the atone- 
ment renders this unnecessary. Yet a few references 
will follow ; and we here give a summary statement of 
his doctrinal position. 

"The fundamental error of the Socinian view was 
found by Grotius to be this: that Socinus regarded 
God, in the work of redemption, as holding the place 
merely of a creditor, or master, whose simple will was 
a sufficient discharge from the existing obligation. But, 
as we have in the subject before us to deal with punish- 
ment and the remission of punishment, God cannot be 
looked upon as a creditor, or an injured party, since the 
act of inflicting punishment does not belong to an in- 
jured party as such. The right to punish is not one of 
the rights of an absolute master or of a creditor, these 
being merely personal in their character; it is the right 
of a ruler only. Hence God must be considered as a 
ruler, and the right to punish belongs to the ruler as 
such, since it exists, not for the punisher's sake, but for 



202 Governmental Theory. 

the sake of the commonwealth, to maintain its order 
and to promote the public good." ! 

The passage just cited is a very free rendering of the 
original of Grotins, yet sufficing for the leading ideas. 
It is given as opening up, especially by the logic of its 
principles, his theory of atonement. It has not entire 
acceptability. Respecting the right to punish sin as 
purely a rectoral one, the principle may apply to man, 
but not to God. He has such a personal right. If 
Grotius allows an inference to the contrary, so far we 
think him in error. The case of forgiveness is different; 
and it is correct to say that God may not forgive sin 
irrespective of the interests of his moral government. 
This is a vital principle in the Governmental theory. 
It is the ground on which Grotius maintains the neces- 
sity for an atonement, and defends it against the objec- 
tions of Socinianism. 

Nor did he hold any doubtful view respecting either 
the intrinsic evil of sin or the imperative office of pen- 
alty. Sin deserves eternal penalty, and the penalty 
may not be remitted, except on rectorally sufficient 
ground. Thus, after setting forth the reasons for pun- 
ishment, he says: "God has, therefore, most weighty 
reasons for punishing, especially if we are permitted 
to estimate the magnitude and multitude of sins. But 
because, among all his attributes, love of the human 
race is pre-eminent, God was willing, though he could 
have justly punished all men with deserved and legiti- 

1 " Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. ix, p. 259. The citation is from a main- 
ly satisfactory roview of the Grotian theory by Baur, in a translation 
by Rev. Leonard Swain. 



Preliminary Facts. 203 

mate punishment, that is, with eternal death — and had 
reasons for so doing — to spare those who believe in 
Christ. But, since we must be spared either by setting 
forth, or not setting forth, some example against so 
many great sins, in his most perfect wisdom he chose 
that way by which he could manifest more of his attri- 
butes at once, viz., both clemency and severity, or his 
hate of sin and care for the preservation of his law." 1 
In these views, while essentially divergent from the 
theory of Satisfaction, he is thoroughly valid and con- 
clusive against Socinianism. 

While thus asserting the intrinsic evil of sin, Grotius 
denies an absolute necessity arising therefrom for its 
punishment. The punishment of sin is just, but not in 
itself an obligation. The intrinsic evil of sin renders 
its penal retribution just, but not a requirement of 
judicial rectitude. Threatened penalty, unless marked 
by irrevocability, is not absolute. A threat differs 
from a promise. The latter conveys a right and takes 
on obligation; the former does not. 2 

In this sense he regarded the divine law as positive, 
and its penalty as remissible. The law, in precept and 
penalty, is a divine enactment; in execution, a divine 
act. The execution is not a judicial obligation, except 
f ar rectoral ends. 

And this is the permissible relaxation of law which 
Grotius maintains. There is such a relaxation, as there 
is reality in the divine forgiveness of sin. Nor have 

Translation in " Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xxxvi, p. 287. 
* " Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xxxvi, pp. 153-155; Dr. Dale: "The 
Atonement," p. 296. 



204 Governmental Theory. 

Satisfactionists any consistent ground for its denial, 
nor any sufficient reason for their adverse criticism of 
Grotius on this account. By their own concession that 
sin, with its demerit, is not and cannot be transferred 
to Christ, they admit by inevitable logical sequence 
that it is not punished in him, and hence, that the law 
in its penalty is relaxed in every instance of non-execu- 
tion upon the actual sinner. 

Holding thus the remissibility of penalty so far as 
the demerit of sin is concerned, Grotius, as previously 
noted, maintains, with its justice, its profound impor- 
tance in the interest of moral government. Forgiveness 
too freely granted, or too often repeated, and especially 
on slight grounds, would annul the authority of the law, 
or render it powerless for its great and imperative rec- 
toral ends. Thus he finds the necessity for an atone- 
ment — for some vicarious provision — which, on the re- 
mission of penalty, may conserve these ends. Such a 
provision he finds in the death of Christ, set forth as a 
penal example. So he styles it. And he makes a very 
free use of the terms of penal substitution. Yet he 
does not seem to regard the sufferings of Christ as 
penal in any very strict sense — certainly not as a sub- 
stitutional punishment of sin in the satisfaction of a 
purely retributive justice. Such an example he regard"? 
as at once a manifestation of the goodness and severity 
of God, of the odiousness of sin, and a deterrent from 
its commission. 

Thus his theory of atonement accords with his view 
of punishment and its remission. These are rectoral 
rather than personal acts. So the atonement, taking 






Preliminary Facts. 205 

the place of penalty in its rectoral ends, regards God in 
his administration rather than in his personal character 
or absolute retributive justice. And thus he grounds 
the atonement in the principles which properly consti- 
tute the Governmental theory. 

The Acceptilatio of Duns Scotus is very freely 
charged upon Grotius, especially by Satisfactionists. 
Even Dr. Pope, though an Arminian, is consenting 
thereto in his late work on theology. 1 Bauer joins in 
the accusation in the article previously given by refer- 
ence; though he does not withhold the fact that Gro- 
tius himself formally rejected the principle. This he 
certainly did, and denied that acceptilation could have 
any place with the punishment of sin. Repelling this 
accusation as brought by Socinus against the atone- 
ment, he says: "For, in the first place, this word may 
be applied, even when no payment precedes, to the 
right over a thing loaned, but is not, and cannot be, 
applied to punishment. We nowhere read that indul- 
gence of crimes was called by the ancients acceptila- 
tion. For that is said to be accepted which can be 
accepted. The ruler properly exacts corporal punish- 
ment, but does not accept it; because from punish- 
ment nothing properly comes to him." 2 It is as a 
logical implication that Bauer makes the charge. 
But Grotius certainly understood the question, and 
the logic of its facts and principles, as thoroughly 
as his reviewer. We join issue, and deny that Accep- 
tilation is in any logical sense consequent to the theory 

1 " Christian Theology," p. 412. 

* Translation in "Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xxxvi, p. 298. 
14 



206 Governmental Theory. 

of Grotius; while we affirm its close affinity with that 
of Anselm. 

Leading divines of the Church — Abelard, Bernard, 
Peter Lombard, Duns Scotus, and others — contempora- 
ries of Anselm, or his close followers in time, were 
not all close followers of his " Cur Deus Homo." Some 
diverged so widely as to propound really new theories. 
But Duns Scotus, the heretical Acceptilationist, really 
propounded no new theory in kind. He dissented from 
Anselm, not respecting the nature of an atonement in 
the meritorious obedience and suffering of Christ, and 
in satisfaction or payment of a divine claim — a claim 
arising out of the wrong which God had suffered on 
account of sin, — not on these determining facts, but re- 
specting the amount of the debt and the relative value 
of the payment. With Anselm, the debt was infinite; 
with Duns, not strictly infinite. With the former, 
the payment was in full; with the latter, only in part; 
which, however, God graciously accepted in lieu of the 
whole, his acceptance also giving value to the sum 
paid. This is the Acceptilatio of Duns Scotus, as 
known in historical theology. 1 His divergence was 
specially from a difference in Christology, or respect- 
ing the redemptive sufferings of Christ. With Anselm, 
his sufferings as the God-Man were of infinite value 
and therefore a payment in full; while with Duns they 
were strictly limited to his human nature, and, there- 
fore, of finite value, and a payment only in part. But 
he all the while adheres to the same atonement in kind 
— atonement by payment toward the satisfaction of a 
1 Hagenbach : "History of Doctrines," vol. ii, pp. 39, 44. 



Preliminary Facts. 207 

divine claim. This is proof that his Acceptilatio has 
a close affinity for the theory of Anselm. 

It is only with such a theory that it can have any 
affinity. It is grounded in the ideas of debt and pay- 
ment. There must be a divine claim payable in mer- 
itorious obedience and suffering. Whatever is paid 
must go to the account in claim. This is Acceptilation, 
These ideas of debt and payment have the utmost cur- 
rency in the Anselmic theory — in the Satisfaction 
theory. 

But Grotius held no theory of sin and penalty, and 
no theory of atonement, which admits any such sense 
of debt and payment. His adverse critics clearly prove 
that he did not. And as he formally denied Accepti- 
lation, and the very possibility of it in the case of pen- 
alty for sin, so the principles of his doctrine of atone- 
ment deny for him all the ideas of debt and payment 
— and in part as in whole — without which it has no 
place. 

Mr. Watson, while freely citing Grotius as an au- 
thority, accuses him of unduly leaning to that view of 
the atonement which regards it " as a merely wise and 
fit expedient of government." ' He probably had spe- 
cially in view this passage in Grotius : " It becomes us 
only to make this preliminary remark — that Socinus is 
not right in postulating that we must assign a cause 
which shall prove that God could not have acted other 
unse. For such a cause is not required in those things 
which God does freely. But he who will maintain that 
this was a free action may refer to Augustine, who 
1 " Theological Institutes," vol. ii, p. 139. 



208 Governments Theory. 

declares, not that God had no other possible way of 
liberating us, but that there was no other more appro- 
priate way for healing our misery, neither could be. 
But also, before Augustine, Athanasius had said : ' God 
was able by a mere utterance to annul the curse with- 
out coming himself at all. But it is necessary to con- 
sider what is useful to men, and not always what is 
possible to God.' Nazarius says : 'It was possible for 
God even without the incarnation (of Christ) to save 
us by his mere volition.' Bernard : ' Who does not 
know that the Almighty had at hand various methods 
for our redemption, justification, liberation ? But this 
does not detract from the efficacy of that method which 
he has selected out of many.'" 1 

We do not understand Grotius to indorse all these 
citations, though from authors so eminent. If he did, 
we certainly could not follow him. And his doctrine 
of atonement has a far deeper sense than that of a dis- 
pensable expedient of government. His position here 
is, that of the divine freedom in the particular manner 
of human redemption, within the limit of a sufficient 
redemption. A distinction may properly be here made. 
Only a divine person could redeem the world; and the 
redemption could be effected only by a great personal 
sacrifice. The necessity is from the office which the 
atonement must fulfill. But, with the profoundest con- 
/iction of truth in these facts, we should greatly hesi- 
tate to say — indeed, we do not believe — that in the 
resources of infinite wisdom the precise manner of the 
mediation of Christ was the only possible manner of 

1 Translation in " Bibliotheca Sacra," voL xxxvi, p. 286. 



Preliminary Facts. 209 

human redemption. We are not sure that Grotius 
means any thing more. 

5. The Consistent Arminian Tfteory. — In the refer- 
ence to Arminianism we include the Wesleyan school, 
and take the position of consistency with special refer- 
ence to it. 

Wesleyan Arminianism has ever been true to the 
fact of an atonement in Christ. In her hymns and 
prayers, in her utterances of a living Christian experi- 
ence, in her sermons and exhortations, this great fact 
ever receives the fullest recognition. In her soteriology 
" Christ is all and in all." 1 In the fullness and con- 
stancy of her faith in the reality and necessity of an 
atonement in Christ, Wesleyan Methodism has no rea- 
son to shun any comparison with the most orthodox 
soteriology. 

What is our doctrine of atonement? The answer 
to this question is not so simple or unperplexed as many, 
at first thought, would suppose. The Scripture terms of 
atonement have, with all propriety, been in the freest 
use with us. Nor have we been careful to shun the 
terminology of tue strictest doctrine of Satisfaction. 
An inquiry for the ideas associated with these terms in 
the popular thought of Methodism respecting the na- 
ture oi the atonement, would probably bring no very 
definite answer. In view of all the facts, we are con- 
strained to think that the dominant idea has been, that 
of a real and necessary atonement in Christ, while the 
idea of its nature has been rather indefinite. We are 
very sure, that while the popular faith of Methodism 
1 Col. 3 : 1L 



210 Governmental Theory. 

has utterly excluded the Socinian scheme, it has not 
been at one with the theory of Satisfaction. 

Our earlier written soteriology has, at least in part, 
a like indefiuiteness. It is always clear and pronounced 
on the fact of an atonement, but not always exact or 
definite respecting its nature. This, however, should be 
noted, that our written soteriology contains comparative- 
ly but little directly on this question. Indeed, we have 
not contributed much to the literature of the atonement. 
And most of the little contributed has been given to 
the two questions of reality and extent, while only the 
smaller part has been given to the nature or doctrine 
of the atonement. 

Mr. Watson has written more fully and formally on 
the atonement than any other Methodist author. 1 We 
recognize his superior ability as a theologian. This 
ability is not wanting in his discussion of the atone- 
ment. But his strength is given to the questions of its 
reality and extent. His discussion is mainly a polemics 
with the Socinian scheme and with Calvinistic liniita- 
tionists. With rare ability he maintains the fact of an 
atonement against the one, and its universality against 
the others. But on the question of theories we cannot 
accord to him any very clear discrimination. Grotius, 
as it appears, was his chief authority; and next to him, 
Still ingfleet, who wrote mainly in defense of Grotius.'' 
But Grotius, while giving the principles of a new 
theory, did not, as previously noted, give to its con- 
struction scientific completeness. He wrote from the 

1 " Theological Institutes," vol. ii, chapters xix-xxix, 
• " Works," vol. iii, p. 227. 



Preliminary Facts. 211 

stand-point of the Reformed doctrine, but with sucb 
new principles as really constitute another doctrine. 
But clear and determining as his principles are, he 
failed to give either theory in scientific completeness. 
This is just what Mr. Watson has failed to do. And 
he is less definite than Grotius himself. 

He rejects the doctrine of Satisfaction in its usual 
exposition, and requires for its acceptance such modi- 
fications as it cannot admit. He interprets Satisfaction 
much in the manner of Grotius, and hence in a sense 
which the Reformed doctrine must reject. And the 
doctrine which he arraigns and refutes as the Antino- 
mian atonement, is the historic and current Calvinian 
doctrine of Satisfaction, with the formal rejection of its 
Antinomian sequences. He is, therefore, not a Satis- 
factionist. 1 

The principles of moral government in which Mr. 
Watson grounds the necessity for an atonement mainly 
determine for him the Governmental theory. 2 The 
same is true of his discussion of the "vinculum" be- 
tween the sufferings of Christ and the forgiveness of 
sin ? 3 And when we add his broader views in soteri- 
ology as including the universality of the atonement, 
its strictly provisory character, and the real condition- 
ality of its saving grace — views necessarily belonging 
to all consistent Arminian theology, and which Mr. 
Watson so fully maintained — his principles require for 
him the Governmental theory of atonement. And the 
more certainly is this so, as it is impossible to construct 

1 " Theological Institutes," vol. ii, pp. 138-143. 
* Ibid., pp. 81-102. » Ibid., pp. 143-146. 



212 Governmental Theory. 

any new doctrine of a real atonement between this and 
the Satisfaction theory. 

So far as we know, Dr. Whedon has never given his 
theory of atonement in the style of the Governmental; 
yet it is in principle the same. In his statement of the 
doctrines of Methodism it is given thus: "Christ as 
truly died as a substitute for the sinner, as Damon could 
have died as a substitute for Pythias. Yet to make 
the parallel complete, Damon should so die for Pythias 
as that, unless Pythias should accept the substitution 
of Damon in all its conditions, he should not receive 
its benefits, and Damon's death should be for him in 
vain; Pythias may be as rightfully executed as if Damon 
had not died. If the sinner accept not the atonement, 
but deny the Lord that bought him, Christ has died for 
him in vain; he perishes for whom Christ died. If the 
whole human race were to reject the atonement, the 
atonement would be a demonstration of the righteous- 
ness and goodness of God, but would be productive of 
aggravation of human guilt rather than of salvation 
from it. The imputation of the sin of man, or his 
punishment, to Christ, is but a popular conception, 
justifiable, if understood as only conceptual; just as we 
might say that Damon was punished instead of Pythias. 
In strictness of language and thought, neither crime, 
guilt, nor punishment is personally transferable." ' 

Any one at all familiar with theories of atonement 
will see at a glance that the principles contained in this 

1 " Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xix, pp. 260, 261. Dr. Whedon gives 
the samo views in his very able sermon on " Substitutional Atone 
oaent." 



Preliminary Facts. 213 

statement are thoroughly exclusive of the Satisfaction 
theory, and that they have a true scientific position only 
with the Rectoral theory. The same is true of the doc- 
trine, and with much fuller unfolding, in the sermon 
to which reference is given. 

On the theory of atonement we understand Dr. Ray 
inond to be with Dr. Whedon. He gives the atone- 
ment thus: "The death of Christ is not a substituted 
penalty, but a substitute for a penalty. The necessity 
of an atonement is not found in the fact that the jus- 
tice of God requires an invariable execution of deserved 
penalty, but in the fact that the honor and glory of 
God, and the welfare of his creatures, require that his 
essential and rectoral righteousness be adequately de- 
clared. The death of Christ is exponential of divine 
justice, and is a satisfaction in that sense, and not in 
the sense that it is, as of a debt, the full and complete 
payment of all its demands." 1 

The principles given in this passage exclude the 
Satisfaction atonement, and require as their only scien- 
tific position the Rectoral theory. All this is even 
more apparent when the passage cited is interpreted in 
the light of the further references given. 

With this view Dr. Raymond's doctrine of justifica- 
tion, as that of every consistent Arminian, fully accords. 
It is not a discharge of the sinner through the merited 
punishment of his sin in his substitute, but an actual 
forgiveness, and such as can issue only in the non-exe- 
cution of penalty. 2 

1 " Systematic Theology," voL ii, pp. 26?, 258. See also pp. 261, 
264^268. ' Ibid., vol. ii, p. 258. 



214 Governmental Theory. 

We would not place Dr. Raymond in any false light, 
nor identify him with any theory which he discards. 
He does discard the theory which represents the death 
of Christ simply as a governmental display, and espe- 
cially as implying that this is only one of several pos- 
sible expedients in atonement. While fully maintaining 
the rectoral office of the atonement, he regards the 
death of Christ as also a manifestation of the righteous- 
ness of God. 1 But these two facts we think very close- 
ly, indeed inseparably, united. Without the manifesta- 
tion of the divine righteousness, the atonement in the 
death of Christ could not fulfill its rectoral office. But 
it is not the Governmental theory, in any true statement 
of it, that is here criticised. And on its own principles 
the theory requires the redemptive mediation of Christ 
as the only adequate atonement. 

The principles and office of the atonement in Christ, 
as maintained by Dr. Bledsoe, agree with the Govern- 
mental theory. This will be clear to any one who will 
read with scientific discrimination his discussion of the 
question. 3 And with Arminians he is, rightfully, a rep- 
resentative author on questions of this kind. He had 
both the learning and the ability for the discussion of 
Methodist doctrines. He gave to them profound study, 
and had a deep insight into their philosophy. The same 
is true respecting the atonement. He studied it in the 
light of the Scriptures and in its scientific relations 
to other cardinal doctrines of Wesleyan Arminianism 
The outcome is a doctrine intrinsically the same as 

1 " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 253. 
* "Theodicy," pp. 276-293. 



Pkel.imi.naby Facts. 215 

we propound, though not so styled. On the ground 
of such a doctrine it is easy to answer the Socinian ob- 
jections arrayed against the fact of an atonement in 
the death of Christ : objections which the theory of 
Satisfaction never has answered, and never can. 

The soteriology of Wesleyan Arminianism, taken a^ 
a whole, excludes the Satisfaction theory, and requires 
the Governmental as the only theory consistent with 
its doctrines. The doctrines of soteriology, with the 
atonement included, must admit of systemization, and 
be in scientific accord. If not, there is error at some 
point, as no truth can be in discord with any other 
truth. 1 Now certain cardinal doctrines of the Wes- 
leyan soteriology are very conspicuous and entirely 
settled. One is, that the atonement is only provisory 
in its character; that it renders men salvable, but does 
not necessarily save them. Another, and the conse- 
quence of the former, is the conditionality of salvation. 
Nor is this such as Calvinism often asserts, yet holds 
with the monergism of the system, but a real condi- 
tionality in accord with the synergism of the truest 
Arminianism. On these facts there is neither hesita- 
tion nor divergence in Methodism. With these facts, 
the atonement of Satisfaction must be excluded from 
her system of doctrines, and the Rectoral theory main- 
tained as the only doctrine of a real atonement agree 
ing with them. 

Such has really been the position of Arminianism 
from the beginning, though without exact or definitive 
statement. It never occupied the position of Luther 
1 Chapter i, 10. 



216 Governmental Theory. 

anisni in maintaining a doctrine of atonement which, 
with its universality, must save all men, and which is 
disproved by the fact that many are not saved. While 
the earlier Arminians never formally constructed a doc- 
trine of atonement in scientific accord with their sys- 
tem; yet from the beginning they denied the leading 
facts of the Reformed soteriology, so vitally connected 
with the atonement of Satisfaction. Thus they denied 
its limitation to an elect part; that it is necessarily sav- 
ing; that it includes its own application; that saving 
faith is a resistless product of its sovereign grace; that 
the application is in the full extent of the redemption. 1 
Indeed, these questions were the chief issue in the great 
polemics between the Arminians and the Calvinists. 
Hence the former could not consistently hold the doc- 
trine maintained by the latter. 

On these same questions, so directly concerning the 
atonement and so decisive of its nature, Wesleyan 
Methodism has ever been most thoroughly Arminian. 
And there is thus determined for her the Rectoral the- 
ory as the only doctrine of a real atonement consistent 
with her soteriology. 

n. 

Public Justice. 

We have previously treated justice in its distinctions 

as commutative, distributive, punitive — the last being 

a special phase of the distributive. We also named 

public justice, but deferred it for discussion in connec- 

*Dr. Schaff: "Creeds of Christendom," vol. i, pp. 516-518; Fred- 
erick Calder: "Memoirs of Episcopius," p. 474; Professor Smeaton: 
"Apostles' Doctrine of Atonement," pp. 537, 538. 



Public Justice. 217 

tion with the Rectoral theory of atonement. We have 
now reached the proper place for its treatment. 

1. Relation to Atonement. — Any theory of atonement 
embodying enough truth to be really a theory must 
take special account of divine justice. The relation 
between the two is most intimate; so intimate, indeed, 
that the view taken of justice must be determinative 
of the theory of atonement. This we found to be true 
of the theory of Satisfaction. It is not only in accord 
with the principles of justice asserted in connection 
with it, but is imperatively required by them. They 
will admit no other doctrine. If justice must punish 
sin simply for the reason of its demerit, penal substitu- 
tion is the only possible atonement. So the Govern- 
mental theory must be consistent with the doctrine of 
justice maintained in connection with it; and, to be 
true, must accord with justice as a divine attribute, 
and in all its relations to sin and to the ends of moral 
government. 

As in the Satisfaction theory, so in the Rectoral, the 
sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin only as 
in some sense they take the place of penalty. But 
they do not replace penalty in the same sense in the 
schemes. In the one they take its place as a pe- 
nal substitute, thus realizing the office of justice in 
the actual punishment of sin; in the other they 
take its place in the fulfillment of its office as con- 
cerned with the interests of moral government. It 
is the office of justice to maintain these interests 
through the means of penalty. Therefore, atonement 
in the mediation of Christ must so take the place of 



218 Governmental Theory. 

penalty as to fulfill this same office, while the penalty is 
remitted. 

Such being the office of atonement in the Govern- 
mental theory, it is clear that for a proper exposition 
of the doctrine we require an exact and discriminating 
statement of public justice, or of penalty as the means 
of justice for the conservation of moral government. 
We shall thus secure a right construction of the doc- 
trine, and, also, obviate certain objections which have 
no validity against the doctrine itself, whatever force 
they may have against defective forms of it. No 
ground will remain for objecting either that the the- 
ory makes light of the demerit of sin, or that it trans- 
forms justice into mere benevolence, or that it regards 
the substitution of Christ in suffering as a mere expe- 
dient, in place of which some other provision would 
answer as well. 

2. One with Divine Justice. — Public justice is not a 
distinct kind of justice; not other than divine justice. 
It is divine justice in moral administration. God is 
moral Ruler only as he has moral subjects. Therefore, 
in the eternity anteceding their creation he existed 
without any rectoral office of justice. Their creation 
gave him no new attribute, though it brought him into 
new relations. In these new relations to moral beings 
his justice, an essential and eternal attribute of his na- 
ture, found its proper office in moral government. In 
the fulfillment of this office it rules through the means 
of reward and penalty. So, in the moral system, public 
justice is the one divine justice in moral administration. 

3. One with Distributive Justice. — In principle public 



Public Justice. 219 

justice is one with distributive justice. Subjects differ 
in moral character. Some are obedient to the law of 
duty; others, disobedient. This makes a difference in 
character. The difference is real and intrinsic. So the 
law of God discriminates the two classes. And in this 
our moral reason is in full consent with the divine law. 
Jn the profoundest convictions of our moral conscious- 
ness we are assured of the reality of moral obligation, 
and of an essential ethical difference between obedience 
and disobedience; and equally, that the former has 
merit or rewardableness, and the latter, punitive desert. 
So in moral administration God deals with men accord- 
ing to their conduct, rewarding their obedience, and 
punishing their sin. The fact does not require exact or 
full justice in the present state of probation. It is the 
law of our responsible being. But this, in essential 
principle and in rectoral office, is simply public jus- 
tice, or justice in moral administration. All its use of 
reward and penalty, and for whatever reason or end, is 
in the view of moral character in the subjects of gov- 
ernment. Public justice is, therefore, no law of mere 
expediency, or of mere expedients; in essential princi- 
ple and in office it is one with divine justice, one with 
distributive justice. 

4. Ground of its Penalties. — Within the realm of the 
divine government the sole ground of the penalties of 
administrative or public justice lies in the demerit of 
sin. The fact is not other, nor in any sense modified 
by any or all the ulterior ends or utilities of penalty in 
the interest of moral government. All penal inflict ion 
falls upon the demerit of sin as really and restricted ly 



220 Governmental Tiieory. 

as though its punishment were the sole thing in the di- 
vine view. This is justice, and this only. Tnblic jus- 
tice has no other ground for its penalties. Nor may it, 
except on such ground, inflict any penalty for any ulte- 
rior end or interest, however great and urgent. This 
truth cannot be too deeply emphasized. 

We are speaking of divine justice in moral adminis- 
tration. Any thing qualifying the administration of 
justice in human government arises, in part, from a 
want of punitive prerogative over the intrinsic demerit 
of sin; in part, from an inability to know in any given 
case what the real demerit is. We may infer the guilt 
from the apparent motive. We cannot search the heart. 
Hence, in dealing with human conduct, our rightful use 
of penalty is not really to punish sin as having intrinsic 
demerit, but to protect society from its injury. The 
former is the divine prerogative. God searches the 
heart. He knows all the secret springs and motives of 
human action. He knows all the sinfulness of such ac- 
tion. It is his sole right to punish it, simply as such. 
In all the universe, and for any and all purposes, he has 
nothing but sin to punish. 

On this ground public justice is one with distributive 
justice, one with divine justice; and as wrought into a 
proper Rectoral atonement even more rigidly adheres 
to the principle than the purely retributive justice as 
wrought into the theory of Satisfaction. This theory 
equally asserts the same principle, but departs from it 
in the futile attempt to separate guilt from demerit, to 
carry it over by imputation to Christ, and so to have 
the merited penalty inflicted upon him, while the sin- 



Public Justice. 221 

tier and the sin are left behind. This i-s a real depart- 
ure from the principle. We may technically distin- 
guish between sin and guilt, taking the former for 
personal demerit and the latter for answerableness in 
penalty. We go further, and say that on such distinc- 
tion there may be personal demerit without guilt — as 
a soul graciously forgiven still has such demerit but 
not such guilt. But the converse, that there may be 
guilt apart from demerit — guilt as an amenability to 
penalty — does not follow and is not true. Yet it is the 
very truth of this converse that the scheme of Satisfac- 
tion requires as vital to its doctrine of atonement by 
penal substitution. 

We emphasize the principle, that in moral govern- 
ment personal demerit is the only source of guilt, and 
the only ground of just punishment. If there be any 
thing valid in the imputation of another's sin, it must 
transfer the demerit before guilt can arise or the pun- 
ishment be just. And whatever in the providence of 
God, whether from the constitution of things or by 
immediate interposition, transcends the limit of de- 
merit, ceases to be punishment. Without such a prin- 
ciple punishment has no possible rationale. 

On this principle all divine penalties, whether exe- 
cuted or only uttered, and in the utterance as in the 
execution, at once express both the divine justice and 
the demerit of sin. Hence the execution is not really 
necessary to that expression. The use and value of the 
fact will come directly. And we shall find with it a 
sure basis for the Governmental theory. 

5. End of its Penalties. — We have not a full exposi- 
15 



224 Governmental Theory. 

rary service might be rendered in the latter ease, in the 
divine government, the consequences would be fatal: 
for here only the loyalty of the heart will answer. 
This never could be secured by a measure of injustice 
from which it must revolt. And personal demerit, as 
the only ground of justice in punishment, is absolutely 
necessary to all the service of penalty in the interests 
of moral government. A true doctrine of public jus- 
tice never departs from this principle. 

We thus combine the two elements in the exposition 
of public justice. Only thus have we a public justice. 
Omitting the rectoral element, justice is purely retribu- 
tive, having regard to nothing except the punishment 
of sin. Omitting the retributive element, justice is in- 
justice. Holding the distinction of justice as retribu- 
tive and rectoral, and combining the two elements in 
the one doctrine, we free the question of punishment 
from the perplexity which its history records. 1 The 
distinction is valid. There are the two offices of jus- 
tice. But they must never be separated. Penalty, as 
a means in the use of justice, has an end beyond the 
retribution of sin. But, whatever its ulterior end, it is 
just only as it threatens, or falls upon, demerit. And 
only thus can it fulfill its high office in the interests of 
moral government. 

It is in the failure first properly to discriminate the 
two offices of justice in the punishment of sin and the 
protection of rights, and then to properly combine the 
two elements in the one doctrine of punishment, that 
the Rectoral atonement exposes itself to really serious 

1 Cousin : " Psychology,' translated by C. S. Henry, pp. 317, 318. 



Public Justice. 225 

objections, which yet have no validity against a true 
construction of the theory. And it is against such an 
erroneous construction that objections are chiefly urged. 
They are specially urged against it as embodying, or 
as assumed to embody, that view of justice which makes 
its strictly rectoral ends the sole account of penalty. 
* It is on this false principle that the whole govern- 
mental theory of atonement is founded. It admits no 
ground of punishment but the benefit of others." * We 
represent no such a theory. "We discard it as fully as 
Dr. Hodge, or any other advocate of the Satisfaction 
atonement. Our previous discussions so certify. Hence 
the objection which the quotation implies is utterly void 
against the doctrine of atonement, as we construct and 
maintain it. 

It is in the same line of objection that we have cited 
" a story of an English judge who once said to a crim- 
inal, ' You are transported, not because you have stolen 
those goods, but that goods may not be stolen.' " 2 We 
would not defend the propriety of such a delivery. 
Indeed, we think it very injudicious. A criminal should 
feel that he deserves the penalty inflicted upon him; 
otherwise, his punishment can have no tendency toward 
his amendment. An impression of such desert should 
also be made upon the public mind, as necessary to the 
public benefit. But in neither case can the necessary 
salutary impression be made where all mention of puni- 
tive desert is omitted, or where any reference to it is 
entirely to dismiss it from all connection with the 
punishment inflicted. Yet there is a deep sense in 

1 Dr. Hodge : " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 5T9. a Ibid. 



228 GoVEENMENTAL ThEOEY. 

have against the doctrine of others, it has no validity 
against our own. 

6. Remissibility of its Penalties.— There is no suffi- 
cient reason why sin must be punished solely on the 
ground of its demerit. The forgiveness of the actual 
sinner as a real remission of penalty, at the time of his 
justification and acceptance in the divine favor, is proof 
positive to the contrary. And, all other ends apart, 
retributive justice may remit its penalty. It may do 
this without an atonement. Indeed, it does not admit 
of an atonement in satisfaction of such remission. It is 
here, as noticed before, that we part by a fundamental 
principle with the theory of Satisfaction. It denies the 
remissibleness of penalty, as due solely to the demerit 
of sin, on any and all grounds. Hence, it requires for 
any discharge of the actual sinner a vicarious punish- 
ment in full satisfaction of a purely retributive justice. 
We maintain the proper retributive character of divine 
justice in all the use of penalty in moral administration; 
but this retributive element of justice does not bar the 
remissibility of its penalties. The law of expediency 
determines the measure of divine penalties within the 
demerit of sin. And from their ends in the interest of 
moral government, they are remissible on such ground, 
but only on such ground, as will equally secure these 
ends. This principle is fundamental with us, and de 
terminative of our theory of atonement. But our pre 
vious discussion of the question respecting the remissi- 
bility of divine penalty supersedes the requirement of 
further treatment here. 1 

1 Note to chap, vii, V, 6. 






Public Justice. 229 

1. Place for Atonement. — Thus the way is open for 
some substitutional provision which may replace the 
actual infliction of penalty upon sin. The theory of 
Satisfaction, as we have seen, really leaves no place for 
vicarious atonement. Its most fundamental and ever- 
asserted principle, that sin as such must be punished, 
makes the punishment of the actual sinner an absolute 
necessity. Its own admission, and maintenance even, 
that sin as a personal demerit is untransferable, has 
this inevitable logical sequence. Nor is there any es- 
cape through a technical distinction between demerit 
and guilt, and an alleged transference of the latter to 
Christ as a sufficient ground for the just punishment of 
sin in him. The sin, with all its demerit, and all, there- 
fore, that is punishable, is still left behind with the 
sinner himself. This fact thoroughly blanks all at- 
tempt so to escape. And the scheme of Satisfaction is 
inseparably bound with the logical consequence, that if 
sin, as such, must be punished, then it must be punished, 
and can only be punished, in the actual sinner. But as 
penalties are remissible so far as a purely retributive 
justice is concerned; so, having a special end in the in- 
terest of moral government, they may give place to 
any substitutional measure equally securing that end. 
Here is a place for vicarious atonement. 

8. Nature of Atonement Determined. — The nature of 
the atonement in the sufferings of Christ follows neces- 
sarily from the above principles. It cannot be in the 
nature required by the principles of the Satisfaction 
scheme. In asserting the absoluteness of divine justice 
in its purely retributive element, the theory excludes 



232 Governmental Theory 

nave previously shown that there is no such necessity. 
We have maintained a punitive disposition in God. 
but we also find in him a compassion for the very sin- 
ners whom his justice so condemns. And we may as 
reasonably conclude that his disposition of clemency 
will find its satisfaction in a gratuitous forgiveness of 
all as that he will not forgive any, except on the equiva- 
lent punishment of a substitute. Who can show that 
the punitive disposition is the stronger ? We challenge 
the presentation of a fact in its expression that shall 
parallel the cross in expression of the disposition of 
mercy. And, with no absolute necessity for the pun- 
ishment of sin, it seems clear that but for the require- 
ments of rectoral justice, compassion would triumph 
over the disposition of a purely retributive justice. 
Hence this alleged absolute necessity for an atonement 
is really no necessity at all. 

What is the necessity in the Governmental theory ? 
It is such as arises in the rightful honor and authority 
of the divine Ruler, and in the rights and interests of 
moral beings under him. The free remission of sins 
without an atonement would be their surrender. Hence 
divine justice itself, still having all its punitive dis- 
position, but infinitely more concerned for these rights 
and interests than in the mere retribution of sin, must 
interpose all its authority in bar of a mere administra- 
tive forgiveness. The divine holiness and goodness, 
infinitely concerned for these great ends, must equall) 
bar a forgiveness in their surrender. The divine jus- 
tice, holiness, and love must, therefore, combine in the 
1 Chap, vii, Y, 3, 4, 5, 6. 



and Necessity for Atonement. 233 

imperative requirement of an atonement in Christ as 
the necessary ground of forgiveness. These facts 
ground it in the deepest necessity. 

The rectoral ends of moral government are a pro 
founder imperative with justice itself than the retribu- 
tion of sin, simply as such. One stands before the law 
in the demerit of crime. His demerit renders his pun- 
ishment just, though not a necessity. But the protec- 
tion of others, who would suffer wrong through his im- 
punity, makes his punishment an obligation of judicial 
rectitude. The same principles are valid in the divine 
government. The demerit of sin imposes no obliga- 
tion of punishment upon the divine Ruler; but the 
protection of rights and interests, by means of merited 
penalty, is a necessity of his judicial rectitude, except 
as that protection can be secured through some other 
means. It is true, therefore, that the Rectoral atone- 
ment is grounded in the deepest necessity. 

3. Hectored Value of Penalty. — We have sufficiently 
distinguished between the purely retributive and the 
rectoral offices of penalty. The former respects simply 
the demerit of sin; the latter, the great ends to be at- 
tained through the ministry of justice and law. As 
the demerit of sin is the only thing justly punishable, 
and as unjust penalty may not even be legislated, the 
retributive element always conditions the rectoral of- 
fice of justice; but the former does not necessarily in- 
clude the latter. The distinction of these facts is 
real. 

Penal retribution may, therefore, be viewed as a 
distinct fact, and entirely in itself. As such, it is simply 



236 Governmental Theory 

such, and not from fear of the penal consequences of 
their violation or neglect. 

The same facts have the fullest application to penalty 
as an element of the divine law. Here its higher rec- 
toral value will be, and can only be, through the higher 
revelation of God in his moral attributes as ever active 
in all moral administration. In its simple retributive 
element, or as an expression merely of the divine wrath 
against sin, penalty makes its appeal only to an in- 
stinctive fear. Therefore, it can govern through noth- 
ing else. But this is its very lowest rectoral force. Oi 
course, we speak with respect to quality, not quantity. 
And however great the amount of such force, the 
quality is not in the least heightened. Though in such 
measure as by a moral certainty, or necessitation even, 
to sway all moral beings, it would still be the lowest 
governing force. It could still rule only through an 
instinctive fear or servile dread of punishment. A true 
moral obedience never could be so secured. There 
might be the eye-service of slaves, but never the heart- 
service of sons. Let the common moral consciousness 
clothe the divine Ruler in an absolute punitive justice, 
and that justice will hang as a pall of darkness and de- 
spair upon the vision of a trembling world. The pen- 
alty of such a justice, voiced in the thunders and flashed 
in the lightnings of Sinai, could have rectoral force only 
through a servile fear. But God is one. And there is 
no schism among his attributes, nor isolation of any 
one. The just One is also holy and good. And justice, 
as penally retributive, must not be doctrinally isolated, 
nor made in any case the sole law of divine administra- 






and Necessity for Atonement. 237 

tion. In his punitive ministries God is still love; and 
now, under the Gospel, the thunders of Sinai may never 
silence the voices of Calvary. Thus as in both his 
legislative and administrative justice God reveals the 
fullness and harmony of his moral attributes, and him- 
self as looking out upon moral beings pre-eminently 
from the mount of love, and as ruling with a view to 
his own glory and the common good, so does he asso- 
ciate with penalty the highest moral ideas, which find 
a response in the profoundest facts of our moral nature, 
and give to penalty its truest, best rectoral force. 
Now it rules no longer through an instinctive fear, but 
through the profoundest ideas and motives of the moral 
reason. 

4. Rectoral Value of Atonement.- — The sufferings of 
Christ, as a proper substitute for punishment, must ful- 
fill the office of penalty in the obligatory ends of moral 
government. The manner of fulfillment is determined 
by the nature of the service. As the salutary rectoral 
force of penalty, as an element of law, is specially 
through the moral ideas which it reveals, so the vicari- 
ous sufferings of Christ must reveal like moral ideas, 
and rule through them. Not else can they so take the 
place of penalty as, on its remission, to fulfill its high 
rectoral office. Hence the vicarious sufferings of Christ 
are an atonement for sin, as they reveal God in his jus- 
tice, holiness, and love; in his regard for his own honor 
and law; in his concern for the rights and interests of 
moral beings; in his reprobation of sin as intrinsically 
evil, and utterly hostile to his own rights and to the 
welfare of his subjects. 
16 



238 Governmental Theory 

Does the atonement in Christ reveal such truths? 
We answer, Yes. Nor do we need the impossible penal 
element of the scheme of Satisfaction for any part of 
this revelation. 

God reveals his profound regard for the sacredness 
of his law, and for the interests which it conserves, by 
what he does for their support and protection. In di- 
rect legislative and administrative forms he ordains 
his law, with declarations of its sacredness and author- 
ity; embodies in it the weightiest sanctions of reward 
and penalty; reprobates in severest terms all disregard 
of its requirements, and all violation of the rights and 
interests which it would protect; visits upon transgres- 
sion the fearful penalties of his retributive justice, 
though always at the sacrifice of his compassion. The 
absence of such facts would evince an indifference to 
the great interests concerned; while their presence 
evinces, in the strongest manner possible to such facts, 
the divine regard for these interests. These facts, with 
the moral ideas which they embody, give weight and 
salutary governing power to the divine law. The omis- 
sion of the penal element would, without a proper rec- 
toral substitution, leave the law in utter weakness. 

Now let the sacrifice of Christ be substituted for the 
primary necessity of punishment, and as the sole ground 
of forgiveness. But we should distinctly note what it 
replaces in the divine law, and wherein it may modify 
the divine administration. The law remains, with all 
its precepts and sanctions. Penalty is not annulled. 
There is no surrender of the divine honor and author- 
ity. Rights and interests are no less sacred, nor guarded 



and Necessity for Atonement. 239 

in feebler terms. Sin has the same reprobation; pen- 
alty the same imminence and severity respecting all 
persistent impenitence and unbelief. The whole change 
in the divine economy is this — that on the sole ground 
of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, all who repent and 
believe may be forgiven and saved. This is the divine 
substitution for the primary necessity of punishment. 
While, therefore, all the other facts in the divine legis- 
lation and administration remain the same, and in una- 
bated expression of truths of the highest rectoral force 
and value, this divine sacrifice in atonement for sin re- 
places the lesson of a primary necessity for punishment 
with its own higher revelation of the same salutary 
truths; rather, it adds its own higher lesson to that of 
penalty. As penalty remains in its place, remissible, 
indeed, on proper conditions, yet certain of execution 
in all cases of unrepented sin, and, therefore, often 
executed in fact, the penal sanction of law still pro- 
claims all the rectoral truth which it may utter. Hence 
the sacrifice of Christ in atonement for sin, and in the 
declaration of the divine righteousness in forgiveness, 
is an additional and infinitely higher utterance of the 
most salutary moral truths. 1 The cross is the highest 
revelation of all the truths which embody the best 
moral forces of the divine government. 

The atonement in Christ is so original and singular 
in many of its facts, that it is the more difficult to find 
in human facts the analogies for its proper illustration. 
Yet there are facts not without service here. 

An eminent lecturer, in a recent discussion of the 
'Rom. 3: 25, 26. 



240 Governmental Ttieory 

atonement, has given notoriety to a measure of Bronson 
Alcott in the government of his school. 1 He substi- 
tuted his own chastisement for the infliction of penalty 
upon his offending pupil, receiving the infliction at the 
hand of the offender. No one can rationally think such 
a substitution penal, or that the sin of the pupil was 
expiated by the stripes which the master suffered in- 
stead. The substitution answered simply for the dis- 
ciplinary ends of penalty. Without reference either to 
the theory of Bronson Alcott, or to the interpretation 
of Joseph Cook, we so state the case as most obvious 
in the philosophy of its own facts. Such office it might 
well fulfill. And we accept the report of the very salu- 
tary result, not only as certified by the most reliable 
authority, but also as intrinsically most credible. No 
one in the school, and to be ruled by its discipline, 
could henceforth think less gravely of any offense 
against its laws. No one could think, either, that the 
master regarded with lighter reprobation the evil of 
such offense, or that he was less resolved upon a rigid 
enforcement of obedience. All these ideas must have 
been intensified, and in a manner to give them the most 
healthful influence. The vicarious sacrifice ot the mas- 
ter became a potent and most salutary moral element in 
the government maintained. Even the actual punish- 
ment of the offender could not have so secured obe- 
dience for the sake of its own obligation and excel- 
lence. 

Instances have occurred in which an innocent pupil 

' Joseph Cook : " Boston Monday Lectures : " subject, " Ortho- 
ioxy," pp. 156-162. 



and Necessity eor Atonement. 241 

has given himself as a substitute for a guilty one, and 
received the stripes penally due the offender. We have 
here like facts to those in the preceding case, and the 
same philosophy of them. The disciplinary stripes are 
not penal to the substitute, as they would have been in 
their infliction upon the offender. There are wanting 
all the conditions of a veritable punishment. There is 
no demerit in the substitute. The law of the school 
has no penalty for him, and must turn aside from its 
retributive course to reach him. The master has for 
him no condemnation, and finds no retributive satisfac- 
tion in his vicarious suffering. The substitution, there- 
fore, is not for the punishment of sin, but for the sake 
of the rectoral ends of penalty. These ends are se- 
cured through the moral ideas which the substitution 
conveys. 

We may also instance the case of Zaleucus, very 
familiar in discussions of atonement, though usually 
accompanied with such denials of analogy as would 
render it useless for illustration. It is so useless on the 
theory of Satisfaction, but valuable on a true theory. 

Zaleucus was law-giver and ruler of the Locrians, a 
Grecian colony early founded in Southern Italy. His 
laws were severe, and his administration rigid ; yet 
both were well suited to the manners of the people. 
His own son was convicted for violating a law, the 
penalty of which was blindness. The case came to 
Zaleucus both as ruler and father. Hence there was a 
conflict in his soul. He would have been an unnatural 
father, and of such a character as to be unfit for a ruler, 
had he suffered no conflict of feeling. His people en 



242 Governmental Theory 

treated his clemency for his son. But as a statesman, 
he knew that the sympathy which prompted such en- 
treaty could be but transient; that in the reaction ho 
would suffer their accusation of partiality and injustice; 
that his Jaws would be dishonored and his authority 
broken. Still there was the conflict of soul. Whal 
should he do for the reconciliation of the ruler and the 
father ? In this exigency he devised an atonement by 
the substitution of one of his own eyes for one of his 
son's. 1 

This was a provision above law and retributive jus- 
tice. Neither had any penalty for the ruler and father 
on account of the sin of the son. The substitution, 
therefore, was not penal. The vicarious suffering was 
not in any sense retributive. It could not be so. All 
the conditions of penal retribution were wanting. No 
one can rationally think that the sin of the son, or any 
part of it, was expiated by the suffering of the father 
in his stead. The transference of sin as a whole is un- 
reasonable enough; but the idea of a division of it 
a part being left with the actual sinner and punished 
in him and the other part transferred to a substitute 
and punished in him, transcends all the capabilities of 
rational thought. 

The substitution, without being penal, did answer for 
the rectoral office of penalty. The ruler fully protected 
his own honor and authority. Law still voiced its be- 
hests and penalties with unabated force. And the vi- 
carious sacrifice of the ruler upon the altar of his pa- 

1 Warburton : "Divine Legation," vol. i, pp. 180-184; Anthon : 
M Classical Dictionary," p. 1402. 






and Necessity foe Atonement. 243 

rental compassion, and as well upon the altar of his 
administration, could but intensify all the ideas which 
might command for him honor and authority as a ruler, 
or give to his laws a salutary power over his people. 

This, therefore, is a true case of atonement through 
vicarious suffering, and in close analogy to the divine 
atonement. In neither case is the substitution for the 
retribution of sin, but in each for the sake of the rec- 
toral ends of penalty, and thus the objective ground of 
its remissibility. We have, therefore, in this instance 
a clear and forceful illustration of the rectoral value of 
the atonement. And such are the instances previously 
given. But so far we have presented this value in its 
nature rather than in its measure. This will find its 
proper place in treating the sufficiency of the atonement. 

5. Only Sufficient Atonement. — Nothing could be 
more fallacious than the objection that the Govern- 
mental theory is in any sense acceptilational, or intrin- 
sically indifferent to the character of the substitute in 
atonement. In the inevitable logic of its deepest and 
most determining principles it excludes all inferior sub- 
stitution as insufficient, and requires a divine sacrifice as 
the only sufficient atonement. Only such a substitution 
can give adequate expression to the great truths which 
may fulfill the rectoral office of penalty. The case of 
Zaleucus may illustrate this. Many other devisements 
were at his command. He, no doubt, had money, and 
might have essayed the purchase of impunity for his 
son by the distribution of large sums. In his absolute 
power he might have substituted the blindness of some 
inferior person. But what would have been the signif 



244 Governmental Theory 

ication or rectoral value of any such a measure ? It 
could give no answer to the real necessity in the case, 
and must have been utterly silent respecting the great 
truths imperatively requiring affirmation in any ade- 
quate substitution. The sacrifice of one of his own 
eyes for one of his son's did give the requisite affirma- 
tion, while nothing below it could. So, in the substitu 
tion of Christ for us. No inferior being and no inferior 
sacrifice could answer, through the expression and af- 
firmation of great rectoral truths, for the necessary 
ends of penalty. And, as we shall see in the proper 
place, no other theory can so fully interpret and appro- 
priate all the facts in the sacrifice of Christ. It has a 
place and a need for every element of atoning value in 
his substitution. 

G. True Sense of Satisfaction. — The satisfaction of 
justice in atonement for sin is not peculiar to the doc- 
trine of Satisfaction, technically so-called. It is the 
distinctive nature of the satisfaction that is so peculiar. 
The Rectoral atonement is also a doctrine of satisfac- 
tion to divine justice, and in a true sense. The narrow 
view which makes the retribution of sin, simply as such, 
an absolute obligation of justice, and then finds the 
fulfillment of its office in the punishment of Christ as a 
substitute in penalty, never can give a true sense of 
satisfaction. But with broader and truer views of jus- 
tice, with its ends in moral government as paramount, 
and ^ith penalties as the rightful means for their attain- 
ment; then the vicarious sufferings of Christ, as more 
effectually attaining the same ends, are the satisfaction 
of justice, while freely remitting its penalties. This is 



and Scripture Interpretation. 245 

a true sense of satisfaction. Love also is satisfied. 
And a redemption of love must be in satisfaction of love 
as well as of justice. 

Consistently with these views we may appropriate the 
following definition, and none the less consistently or 
freely because of its appropriation by Dr. Symington, 
although a Satisfactionist in the thorough sense of the 
Reformed soteriology : " JSy Satisfaction, in a theolog- 
ical sense, we mean such act or acts as shall accomplish 
all the moral purposes which, to the infinite wisdom of 
God, appear fit and necessary under a system of rector al 
holiness, and which must otherwise have been accomplished 
hy the exercise of retributive justice upon transgressors in 
their own persons " 1 

IV. 

Theory and Scripture Interpretation. 

We have previously stated that any theory of atone- 
ment, to be true, must be true to the Scriptures. It 
must also fairly interpret the more specific terms of 
atonement, and be consistent with all truths and facts 
having a determining relation to it. We freely submit 
the theory here maintained to this test. It will answer 
to all the requirements of the case. Nor will an elab- 
orate discussion be necessary to make the fact clear, 

1. Terms of Divine Wrath. — The Scriptures abound in 
expressions of the divine wrath. 2 Our theory fully rec- 

1 Dr. John Pye Smith: "On Sacrifice and Priesthood," p. 28?. 
Mr Watson gives a similar definition : " Theological Institutes," 
vol. ii, p. 139 ; also Dr. Raymond : " Systematic Theology," vol. ii. 
p. 259. 

'Psa. 18: 31; Jer. 10: 10; Rom. 1: 18; Eph. 5: 6. 



246 Governmental Theoey 

ognizes the fact. And these terms of expression have 
not their full sense simply as rectoral or judicial. Nor 
have we any need of such a restriction. 

There is ground for a distinction as we think of God 
personally and rectorally. There is the same distinc- 
tion respecting a human ruler. He has his personal 
character and also his rectoral sphere. Judicial obli- 
gation may constrain what the personal feeling not only 
fails to support, but strongly opposes. Yet a personal 
disposition in condemnation of crime is very proper in 
a minister of the law. It is necessary, and must ex- 
tend to the criminal, if law is to be properly main- 
tained. And the denial of all personal displeasure of 
God against sin and against sinners would be contrary 
to his essential personal righteousness. Even with men, 
the higher the moral tone the profounder is the repro- 
bation of sin. In the moral perfection of God it has 
its profoundest depth. Yet it is not vindictive or re- 
vengeful, and coexists with an infinite compassion. 
These dispositions, so diverse in tone and ministry, are 
harmonious in God. 

It is in no contrariety to this, that, while punishment 
is with God in sacrifice of his disposition of clemency, 
his punitive disposition is in moral support of the sacri- 
fice. Without a retributive disposition in man, law has 
no sufficient guarantee of enforcement. Mere benevo- 
lence toward the common welfare would not answer for 
the protection of society through the means of penalty. 
We will not allege such a disability in the divine be- 
nevolence: but it is clear that without a retributive 
disposition in God, the punishment of sin would impose 



AND SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 247 

a far greater sacrifice upon his compassion. And his 
punishment of sin is not simply from his benevolenee 
toward the common welfare, nor from the requirement 
of judicial rectitude, but also from the impulse of a 
personal punitive disposition. Hence the terms of the 
divine wrath have a personal as well as an official sense. 
The doctrine we maintain so interprets them, and thus 
shows their consistency with itself. 

But the divine wrath, so interpreted, asserts no dom- 
inance in the mind of God, and is in fullest harmony 
with his love. It has no necessity for penal satisfac- 
tion either in personal contentment or judicial recti- 
tude. As personal, it neither requires nor admits a 
substitute in penalty as the ground of its surrender. 
It is in the nature and necessity of such a disposition 
that any penal satisfaction be found in the retribution 
of the actual sinner. To exaggerate it into a necessity 
for satisfaction, and then to find the satisfaction in the 
retribution of Christ as substitute in penalty, is to per- 
vert Scripture exegesis, and equally to pervert all the- 
ology and all philosophy in the case. In entire consist- 
ency with his personal displeasure, God may and does 
wish the absence of its provocation and the repentance 
of the rebellious, that he may receive them in clemency, 
And real as the divine displeasure is against sin and 
against sinners, atonement is made, not in its personal 
satisfaction, but in fulfillment of the rectoral office 
of justice. Hence, on the truth in the case, our theory 
fully interprets the terms of divine wrath. 

2. Terms of Divine Righteousness. — The Scripture 
texts which in different ways attribute righteousness 



248 Governmental Theory 

to God, form a very numerous class. 1 He is righteous; 
righteousness belongeth unto him; and his doings are 
righteous. These terms, so applied, are often synon- 
ymous with holiness; often, with goodness; sometimes, 
with justice. And they give no place to the narrow 
view which mostly restricts the divine righteousness to 
the retribution of sin. 

If, as asserted, the punishment of sin according to 
its demerit is an absolute requirement of judicial rec- 
titude in God, so that he is righteous only as he so 
punishes, or unrighteous in any omission, it follows 
that our doctrine will not properly interpret these 
terms. But, as we have previously shown, the divine 
righteousness has no such necessity. 

In that God legislates, not arbitrarily or oppress* 
ively, but wisely and equitably, as with respect to his 
subjects — inflicts no unjust punishment, but by means 
of just penalty protects all rights and interests which 
might suffer wrong from the impunity of sin, except 
as forgiveness is granted only on such ground as may 
equally secure the same end — and rewards his children 
according to the provisions and promises appertaining 
to the economy of grace — he is righteous in the truest 
and highest sense of judicial righteousness which the 
Scriptures attribute to him. But these facts are in the 
fullest accord with our doctrine of atonement. It, 
therefore, fairly and fully interprets the Scripture 
terms of the divine righteousness. 

3. Terms of Atonement. — The more special terms of 
atonement, as previously given, are, atonement itself, 

^en. 18:25; Psa.48:10; Dan. 9:7; Rom. 1:17; Rev. 16: 5. 



and Scripture Interpretation. 249 

reconciliation, propitiation, redemption, and the appro- 
priated term substitution. All these terms have a proper 
interpretation in the Governmental theory. As an ex- 
pression of the office and results of the redemptive 
mediation of Christ, they are properly rectoral terms. 
Yet in a deeper sense they imply the personal displeas- 
ure of God against sinners, and a change in his per- 
sonal regard in actual reconciliation. Now they are 
no longer held in reprobation, but accepted in a loving 
friendship. Yet the atoning sacrifice of Christ neither 
appeases the personal displeasure of God nor conciliates 
his personal friendship. These facts are required and 
verified by the further fact, that, although the subjects 
of reconciliation in the death of Christ, yet as sinners 
we are none the less under the personal displeasure of 
God, and so continue until, on our repentance and 
faith, there is an actual reconciliation. The atonement, 
therefore, is in itself provisory. It renders us salvable 
consistently with the rectoral office of justice. But 
these personal regards of God respect man simply in 
his personal character, condemning him in his sinning, 
and accepting him in friendship on his repentance and 
obedience. 

Such an exchange of personal regard is not only a 
consistency in God, but a necessity of his nature. 
Hence, the case is supposable, and with men some- 
times actual, where personal friendship and judicial 
condemnation are co-existent. And could a sinner, 
without the helpful grace of redemption, sincerely re- 
pent and render a true obedience, there would be a 
coincidence upon him of the divine regards of personal 



250 Governmental Theory 

friendship and judicial condemnation. Hence, these 
terms of atonement, while deeply implying the personal 
displeasure of God against sinners as such, represent 
the sufferings of Christ, not as appeasing such dis- 
pleasure, nor as conciliating his personal favor, but as 
the ground of his judicial reconciliation ; yet always 
and only on such conditions of a new spiritual life as to 
carry with his judicial forgiveness his personal recon- 
ciliation and friendship. Such is their true sense; 
and such is their interpretation in the Governmental 
theory. 

4. Terms of Atoning differing. — Any issue on these 
terms respects neither the intensity of the sufferings of 
Christ nor the fact of their atoning office, but the ques- 
tion whether they were in any proper sense penally 
retributive. 

This may be noted first, that there is neither term 
nor text of Scripture which explicitly asserts the penal 
substitution of Christ in atonement for sin. It is a 
noteworthy fact : and the assertion of it will stand 
good until the contrary be shown. As a fact, it is 
against the theory of atonement by penal substitution, 
and in favor of that of vicarious suffering. 

The punishment of Christ as substitute in atonement 
is rendered familiar by frequency of utterance in theo- 
logical discussion; but this is the utterance of theology, 
not the assertion of Scripture. Exegesis often asserts 
the same thing; but this is interpretation, not the texts 
themselves. They neither require nor warrant the in- 
terpretation. Redemption by vicarious suffering, with- 
out the penal element, will give their proper sense. 



and Scripture Interpretation. 251 

Nor is there any term or text of Scripture expressive 
of the atoning suffering of Christ which this doctrine 
cannot freely appropriate in its deepest sense. Yet we 
do not think it necessary to review all the texts in 
question. It will suffice briefly to notice a few of the 
stronger. 

" For he hath made him to be sin (afiaprlav) for us." ' 
A common rendering of the original is sin-offering 
This has ample warrant, and avoids the insuperable 
difficulties attending any restriction to a primary or 
ethical sense of sin. That the Scriptures often use the 
original term in the sense of sin-offering there is no 
reason to question. 2 In the references given, after a 
description of the sin-offering, we have for it the simple 
phrase, " a\iaoria eoti" and so used several times; also, 
after the preceptive instruction respecting the daily 
sacrifice of atonement, we have the phrase, "rd fioaxd- 
piov rd rrjg afiagrlag Troirjaeig" the last two words being 
the very same used in the text under review. On 
dfjaQrla, as used in the references given in Leviticus, 
Sophocles says that "it is equivalent to dvala tteqi 
afiapriac;"* Thus we have in Scripture usage ample 
warrant for rendering the same term in the text under 
review as sin-offering. Nor do we thereby surrender 
any vital truth or fact of atonement. Christ is all the 
same a sacrifice for sin. 



1 2 Cor. 5: 21. a Exod. 29: 14. 36; Lev. 4: 24; 5:9; Hos. 4: 8. 

9 " Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods." And 
we think Macknight quite correct in giving this sense to the same 
term in Heb. 9: 26, 28: certainly so in the second place. — On flit 
Epistles. 



252 Governmental Theory 

If this rendering be denied, what then ? Will sin be 
held in any strictly ethical sense., 01 under any legiti- 
mate definition of sin proper ? Certainly not. Christ 
could not so be made sin for us. No one who can ana- 
lyze the terms and take their import will so maintain. 
Sin must still be subject to interpretation. Shall the 
rendering be the turpitude or demerit of sin ? Even 
Satisfactionists must discard this, as they deny the pos- 
sibility of its tranference. Shall it be the guilt of sin? 
This some will allege. But guilt as a punishable real- 
ity cannot be separated from sin as a concrete fact in 
the person of a sinner. Only punishment remains as a 
possible rendering. But here is a like difficulty, that 
sin as punishable is untransferable. 

" Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse (KardQa) for us: for it is written, 
Cursed (EmKardparog) is every one that hangeth on a 
tree." ! The more literal sense is obvious, and is spe- 
cially emphasized by the citation in the text. Nor 
would we conceal or avoid any force of the terms used. 
The curse of the law on us, and from which Christ re- 
deems us, is the law's condemnation and the imminence 
of its penalty. And he redeems us by being made a 
curse for us in his crucifixion. But in what sense a 
curse ? In the literal sense of the terms, and as em- 
phasized by the quotation ? This in the Hebrew text 
is, " for he that is hanged is accursed of God." ' 

The doctrine of Satisfaction requires this full sense. 
If the curse is the divine punishment of sin, then who- 
ever is so punished is accursed of God. So, if our sins 
•Gal. 3: 13. a Dent. 21: 23. 



AJXIt Scripture Interpretation. 253 

were thus punished in Christ, then was he accursed of 
God. Will the doctrine of Satisfaction hold the literal 
sense, with its inevitable implications ? Only in a sense 
consistent with the facts in the case is he that hangoth 
on a tree the subject of a divine curse. In many in- 
stances the most holy and beloved of the Father have 
been so executed. They were not accursed of God. 
And along with the fact of the divine malediction we 
must ever take the criminality of the subject. As 
such, and only as such, is any one accursed of God. 
Thus it is written of odious criminals, executed for 
their crimes and then exposed in suspension upon a tree, 
that they are accursed of God. Was Christ so ac- 
cursed ? Did the malediction of God fall upon him in 
his crucifixion as upon a criminal in the expiation of 
his sins under a judicial punishment ? 

We must depart from such a sense of this text. Its 
implications in the case of our Lord and Saviour would 
be violative of all truth and fact, and repugnant to all 
true Christian sentiment. We never again can go back 
to Luther's shocking exposition of the text; which, 
however, is in the order of its more literal sense, and 
within the limit of its inevitable implications. And 
that Christ in our redemption submitted to a manner 
of death which, as the punishment of heinous crime 
was in the deepest sense an accursed death, will, with- 
out the curse and wrath of God on him, or any penal 
clement in his suffering, answer for all the require- 
ments of a proper exegesis. 1 

1 Dr. Leonard "Woods : "Works, vol. iv, p. f2 ; Albert Barnes: "The 
Atonement," pp. 294-296. 

17 



254 Governmental Theory 

" Who his own self bare our sins, rag dyxtgrla^ fjfj&Vt 
in his own body on the tree." 1 The apostle no doubt 
had in mind the words of the prophet uttered in his 
marvelous prevision of the redemptive work of Christ.' 
Hence the two passages here stand together. 

They are much in the style and sense of those pre- 
viously considered. That they fully mean the fact of an 
atonement for sin in the vicarious suffering of Christ 
there is no reason to question. And but for the insuper- 
able difficulties previously stated, we might admit an 
element of penal substitution. The texts neither as- 
sert nor require it. Nor will the doctrine of Satisfac- 
tion appropriate them literally. Let it put upon " our 
sins " any proper definition according to the literal sense, 
and then answer to the question, whether Christ really 
bore them in his own body on the tree ? It will not 
answer affirmatively. From such a sense the strongest 
doctrine of penal substitution will now turn aside, and 
proceed to an interpretation in accord with its more 
moderate views. 

As previously stated, we have in these texts the fact 
of an atonement for sin in vicarious suffering. This 
fact justifies the use of their strongest terms of substi- 
tution, and answers for their interpretation. With the 
sufferings and death of Christ as the only and neces- 
sary ground of forgiveness and salvation, we can most 
freely and fully appropriate them. Nor do we need 
the penal element for such appropriation. And on no 
other doctrine than on that which we maintain can it 
be said of Christ more truly, or with deeper emphasis, 
1 1 Pet 2 : 24. ■ Isa. 63 : 4-12. 



and Scripture Facts. 255 

that " he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised 

for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was 

upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed : " " who 

his own self bare our sins in his own body on the 

tree." 

V. 

Theory and Scripture Facts. 

There are a few special facts, clearly scriptural and 
with decisive bearing on the nature of the atonement, 
which may be noted here. They will be found wit- 
nessing for the theory which we maintain, and against 
that in special issue with it. 

1. Guilt of Redeemed Sinners. — It is an obvious fact 
both of the Scriptures and of the reason of the case, 
that sinners as such are under divine condemnation and 
guilt. There is no exception in favor of elect sinners, 
whose sins are alleged to have suffered merited pun- 
ishment in Christ as substitute in penalty. Even ad- 
mitting the Calvinistic distinction between the elect 
and non-elect, redeemed and non-redeemed, there is no 
such exception so long as sin is their habit. The di- 
vine law condemns all alike. The penalty of justice 
threatens all alike. 

Why should this be true of any one whose sins have 
suffered merited punishment in Christ as his accepted 
substitute ? It cannot be true. 1 Whoever suffers the 
just punishment of his own sins is thereafter as free 
from guilt or answerableness in penalty as though he 
had not sinned. If such punishment be possible and 
actual by substitution, the same consequence must 

•Chap, vii, VI, 2. 



256 Governmental Theory 

follow. And we have previously shown, by quotations 
from the highest authorities on the doctrine of Satis- 
faction, that justice itself imperatively requires the dis- 
charge of all sinners the just punishment of whose 
sins Christ has suffered in their behalf. 1 

On such a scheme the discharge of redeemed sinners 
must take place at once. Indeed, guilt is never actual- 
ized in them. The punishment anticipates their sin. 
Then so must their justification or discharge. And all 
that is said to the contrary respecting the requirement 
of proper conditions or the divine determination when 
the discharge shall issue is either irrelevant or incon- 
sistent, aud therefore nugatory. Guilt and punishment 
are specific facts. The penalty of justice once inflicted, 
the subject is free. And on the scheme of Satisfaction 
redeemed sinners can no more be answerable in penalty 
for their sins at any time than Christ as their substitute 
can be answerable again for the same after he has once 
suffered their merited punishment. "So far as the 
guilt of an act — in other words, its obligation to pun- 
ishment — is concerned, if the transgressor, or his ac- 
cepted substitute, has endured the infliction that is set 
over against it, the law is satisfied, and the obligation 
to punishment is discharged." a This is consistent, and 
to the point. 

The illogical jumbling which asserts an atonement 
for sin by actual penal substitution, and then makes it 
over into a kind of deposit, to be drawn upon or dis- 
pensed at the option of the depositary, and that may 

1 Chap, vii, VI, 2. 

* Dr. Shedd: " Theological Essays," pp. 300, 301. 



AJSTD SCEIPTUEE FACTS. 257 

be utterly refused to any and all, should be done with. 
It is in utter contrariety to the Reformed soteriology, 
into which the doctrine of Satisfaction by penal substi- 
tution is so deeply wrought, as it is to that doctrine 
itself, Yet we are constantly meeting this very jum- 
bling. Here is a specimen : " God is under no obliga- 
tion to make an atonement for the sin of the world ; 
and, after lie has made one, he is at perfect liberty to 
apply it to whom he pleases, or not to apply it at aU. 
The atonement is his, and he may do what he will with 
his own." ' We have no adverse criticism, except upon 
what is so palpably inconsistent with the doctrine of 
Satisfaction, as it is with the citation just now given 
from the same author and taken from the same discus- 
sion. Whenever the payment of a debt is accepted, 
and from whomsoever, the debtor is free. Whenever 
a sin is justly punished, and in whomsoever, the sinner 
is free. Any detention, either in punishment or in lia- 
bility to it, is an injustice. And the atonement of 
Satisfaction is not a deposit which may go to the pay- 
ment of our debt of guilt, but the actual payment; not 
something that may be accounted to us for the punish- 
ment of our sins, but their actual punishment. The 
making of such an atonement is the application of it. 
And now to represent it as a deposit that may be 
drawn upon — to write of its optional ai)plication, and of 
its rightful refusal to any or to all — is to jumble egre- 
giously. 
It is still a fact of the Scriptures, as also of the rea- 
1 Dr. Shedd: "Theological Essays," p. 314. The italicizing is his 



268 Governmental Theoey 

sou of the case, tnat sinners as such, though the sub- 
jects of redemption, are in a state of guilt. It is a fact 
contrary to the theory of Satisfaction and in its dis- 
proof, as we have previously shown. But the atone- 
ment in substituted suffering, not in substituted pun- 
ishment, and a provisory ground of forgiveness, not 
only agrees with such a fact, but requires it. There 
fore, as the only alternative to the doctrine of Satisfac- 
tion for a real atonement in Christ, the fact of guilt in 
redeemed sinners witnesses with all the force of its 
logic to the truth of the Governmental theory. 

2. Forgiveness in Justification. — As sin in the re- 
deemed has real guilt, and no less on account of the 
redemption, therefore justification, whatever else it 
may be, must include an actual forgiveness of sin. 
There must be a discharge from guilt as then real, a 
remission of penalty as then imminent. There is such 
a forgiveness. Nor is it really questioned, except for 
the exigency of a system, by truly evangelized minds. 
The Scriptures are full of it. It is in all the warnings 
against impending wrath; in all the urgent entreaties 
to repentance and salvation; in all the requirement and 
urgency of faith as the necessary condition of justifica- 
tion; in the deep sense of guilt and peril realized in a 
true conviction for sin; in the earnest prayer springing 
from such distress of conscience, and importuning the 
mercy of heaven; in the peace and joy of soul when 
the prayer is answered and the Spirit witnesses to a 
gracious adoption. 

Justification is not merely the information, given at 
the time of such experience, of a discharge from guilt 



and Scripture Facts. 259 

long before achieved through the merited punishment 
of sin in a substitute. As up to this time the guilt is 
real, so the forgiveness is now real. And it is much 
against the theory of Satisfaction that it cannot give 
us a true doctrine of forgiveness in justification. But 
the doctrine which we maintain encounters no such 
objection. Such an atonement, while a sufficient ground 
of forgiveness, leaves all the guilt with the sinner until 
his justification by faith. Then his sins are really for- 
given. So witness the Scriptures; and so witnesses 
many a happy experience. 

3. Grace in Forgiveness. — The Satisfactionist thinks 
his own doctrine pre-eminently one of grace. Is it such 
in the forgiveness of sin ? This is the special point we 
make here. Forgiveness is in the very nature of it an 
act of grace. That the divine forgiveness in our justi- 
fication is such an act the Scriptures fully testify. Still, 
it is true that a debt paid, and by whomsoever, is not 
forgiven; that a penalty inflicted, and upon whomso- 
ever, is not remitted. And let it be remembered that 
the absolute irremissibility of penalty is the ground- 
principle in the theory of Satisfaction. 

But since the economy of redemption is of God; 
since it originated in his infinite love; and since he pro- 
vided the sacrifice in atonement for sin, is not his grace 
in forgiveness free and full ? So the Satisfactionist 
reasons. Nor would we abate aught of the love of God 
in human redemption. There is infinite grace in his 
forgiveness of sin; but on the doctrine of atonement 
which we maintain, and not on that of Satisfaction. 

If a doctrine is constructed, as that of Satisfaction. 



260 Governmental Theory 

in the fullest recognition of a distinction of persons in 
the divine Trinity, and also of the specific part of each 
in the economy of human salvation, then it must not, 
for any after-exigency, ignore or suppress such distinc- 
tion. If in the atonement, and as the only possible 
atonement, the Father inflicted the merited punishment 
of sin upon the Son, and the Son endured the punish- 
ment so inflicted, then they fulfill distinct offices in re- 
demption. Yet the fact is often ignored or suppressed, 
in order to defend the doctrine of Satisfaction against 
the objection that it denies to the Father a gracious 
forgiveness of sin. Even Marshall Randies finds it 
convenient to do this in the defense of his own doctrine 
of a conditional penal substitution against the same ob- 
jection. 1 

If, in the obligation of an absolute retributive jus- 
tice the Father must inflict merited punishment upon 
sin — and if in the atonement he inflicted such punish- 
ment upon his Son as the substitute of sinners — then he 
does not remit the penalty. No dialectics can identify 
such infliction with remission. And where there is no 
remission of penalty there can be no grace of forgive- 
ness. Hence, the doctrine of Satisfaction does not ad- 
mit the grace of the Father in forgiveness; which fact 
of grace, however, is clearly given in the Scriptures. 

But this great fact of grace is in full accord with the 
Governmental theory. A provisory atonement in sub- 
stituted suffering, rendering forgiveness consistent with 
the rectoral office of justice, yet in itself abating noth- 
ing of the guilt of sin, as its punishment must, gives 
1 "Substitution: Atonement," pp. 247, 248. 



and Scripture Facts. 261 

place for a real and gracious forgiveness. There is a 
real forgiveness in our justification, and an infinite grace 
of the Father therein. And the Reetoral theory, agree- 
ing with these facts so decisive of the nature of re- 
demptive substitution, and the only theory of a real 
atonement so agreeing, gives us the true doctrine. 

4. Universality of Atonement. — We have previously 
noted the fact that the doctrine of Satisfaction requires, 
on the ground of consistency, a limited atonement; and 
also that its universality, as given in the Scriptures, is 
fatal to the scheme. 1 But the Governmental theory is 
consistent with the universality of the atonement, with 
a real conditionality of its saving grace, and with the 
fact that the subjects of redemption may reject its 
overtures of mercy and perish. It is the only theory 
of a real atonement in accord with these facts, and, 
therefore, the true one. 

5. Universal Overture of Grace. — Who will hesitate 
in such an overture ? Who will question its obligation ? 
But without a universal atonement the offer would be 
made to many for whom there is no grace of forgive- 
ness: hence there could be no such obligation. And 
if the atonement be for all, it must be of a nature to 
render its universality consistent with all the facts of 
soteriology. It is such only on the Rectoral theory. 

6. Doctrinal Result. — The fact of a real atonement in 
Christ is with the Satisfaction and Governmental the- 
ories. Hence the question of its nature is between 
them. We appeal it to the decision of the facts given 
in this section. Here are five scriptural facts, all prom- 

1 Chap, vii, VI, 3. 



262 Governmental Theory 

inent in soteriology, and all vitally concerning the very 
nature of the atonement. They are inconsistent with 
the doctrine of Satisfaction, but in full accord with the 
Rectoral theory. They require such an atonement, 
and, therefore, certify its truth. 

7. delation of Atonement to Childhood. — We may not 
entirely omit the question of this relation. Yet it is 
not directly in the line of our discussion, and is, there- 
fore, to be passed with little more than a reference. 
And the reference is properly to a particular phase of 
the question. There are questions of a common infant 
justification and regeneration, but these we entirely 
omit as irrelevant. The reference we make is to the 
atonement in its relation to the salvation of such as die 
in infancy. 

But even this aspect of the question is only incidental 
to our discussion. We treat the atonement in view of 
the fact of sin and the requirements of moral govern- 
ment. It is a provision for the salvation of sinners, 
and necessary for them as sinners. On the ground of 
such facts rests the validity of our argument for the 
necessity of an atonement, and the correctness of our 
theory of its nature. Hence the question of its relation 
to childhood is irrelevant to this discussion, or, if rele- 
vant, not peculiar, and, therefore, requiring no separate 
consideration. If there be a native guilt and damna 
bleness as well as a native depravity — ever two distinct 
questions, however jumbled in theological treatment- 
then the relation of the atonement to the salvation of 
dying infants is the same as to that of adult sinners. 
But if, with the reality of a native depravity, there be 



and Scripture Facts. 263 

not a native demerit and damnableness, then this rela- 
tion is peculiar, and, therefore, not relevant to our dis- 
cussion of atonement. 

From the facts thus brought into view it is apparent 
that the question of this relation is, first of all and 
chiefly, a question of anthropology, particularly of orig- 
inal sin, and not in the sense of a native depravity, 
but in the far deeper sense of a native demerit and 
damnableness The view taken of this question must 
consistently determine the view respecting the relation 
of the atonement to the salvation of such as die in 
infancy. 

With a native guilt and damnableness, dying infants 
would, as just noted, require for their salvation the 
same atonement and forgiveness as adult sinners. This 
is really the Calvinistic position, and without difficulty 
at this point. There is no peculiar relation of the 
atonement to the salvation of infants, and hence no 
place for any perplexing question respecting it. There 
is still, however, a very great difficulty in this system, 
but lying back in the matter of a native demerit and 
damnableness. 

But if, with a doctrine of native depravity, that of a 
native demerit and damnableness is denied— the really 
consistent Arminian position — then the redemptive 
economy has some peculiarity of relation to the sal- 
vation of such as die in infancy. The question is not 
without its difficulty. But we are not disposed to re- 
place it with the far greater difficulty in the Calvinistic 
position. We must confess that the usual Arminian 
treatment of this question is not very satisfactory. It 



264 Governmental Theory 

often hesitates, vacillates. There is a native guilt, but 
not guilt as of actual sin. There is a native demerit and 
damnableness, and there is not — especially not such as 
might, consistently with the divine justice, be visited 
with endless judicial wrath. The indecision is from an 
attempt to hold Calvinism and Arminianism together 
beyond the point of a real divergence, or from a fail- 
ure to give scientific completeness to the latter. But 
demerit and damnableness are such specific facts, and 
facts in such positive relation to justice and law, that 
they cannot be and not be at the same time. Hence 
the answer respecting them should be categorical — yea 
or nay, not yea and nay. It must be so before we can 
conclude the question whether the atonement has any 
peculiar relation to the salvation of such as die in 
infancy. 

We have previously noted the real distinction be- 
tween the two questions of a native depravity and a 
native demerit and damnableness. The former we 
hold fully and firmly; the latter we do not hold. It is 
not in our article " Of Original or Birth Sin." The 
fact has the deeper doctrinal significance because 
of the history of the article as adopted into our creed, 
The original article from which it is taken — ninth of 
the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England— is 
very strong in the assertion of a native demerit and 
damnableness; and the very significant fact is, that all 
this part was authoritatively omitted from the article 
on its adoption as our own symbol. 1 But our native 

'See our article in the "Methodist Quarterly Review," p. 406. 
July, 18T7. 



and Scripture Facts, 265 

depravity is in itself a moral ruin. Deliverance there- 
from is only through the economy of redemption. In- 
fants dying in infancy are saved in Christ. This we 
fully and gratefully believe. But the relation of his 
redemptive mediation to their salvation is peculiar. 
Their salvation has not the same sense in every fact as 
that of adult sinners. The question is a mystery as 
yet without solution. The Scriptures are quite silent 
respecting it. We have no clear light to give; as cer- 
tainly we have received none from others. 

For ourselves we make this concession of mystery in 
the question before us without the slightest hesitation. 
Every great doctrinal system encounters serious, even 
insoluble difficulty at some point. When the case arises 
let it be frankly confessed. In this our Calvinistic 
brethren are worthy of most honorable mention. Yet 
some Arminians, accustomed to think every thing very 
clear on this question, will regard our position with sur- 
prise and dissatisfaction. They are probably not such 
as have studied the question most deeply. 

A proper discussion of this question, as previously 
noted, would require a discussion of anthropology, es- 
pecially of original sin. It would also require a treat- 
ment of the application of redemptive grace in salva- 
tion. But these questions belong to other divisions of 
theology, and would lead us quite aside from the dis- 
cussion in hand. 



266 Elements of Sufficiency. 



CHAPTER IX. 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE ATONEMENT. 

fTIHE substitution of Christ in suffering answers for an 
atonement through a revelation of such moral truths 
as may give the highest ruling power to the divine law. 
It must, therefore, embody such facts as will give the 
necessary revelation. Only thus can the atonement 
have sufficiency. It is proper, therefore, that we spe- 
cially note some of these facts of atoning value. Au- 
thors differ somewhat respecting them. 1 This may 
arise, at least in part, from a difference in the doctrine. 
The vital facts are clear in the light of Scripture. 

I. 

The Holiness of Christ. 

1. A Necessary Element. — A criminal cannot be a 
proper mediator. Whoever dishonors himself and the 
law by his own transgression is thereby disqualified for 
the office of mediation in behalf of a criminal. If hu- 
man government does not require moral perfection for 
such office, still, the mediator must not be amenable to 
penalty on his own account. And the higher his per- 
sonal righteousness and moral worth, the more valu- 
able will be his mediation as the ground of forgiveness. 

*Dr. Jenkyn: "The Extent of the Atonement," chap, ii; Frofc 
Bruce : " The Humiliation of Christ," p. 385. 



The Holiness op Christ. 267 

As a mediation, so accepted, must inculcate respect for 
law and enforce obedience to its requiremen ts, so, much 
depends upon the moral worth of the mediator. And 
Christ, in the atonement, must be without sin and clear 
of all its penal liabilities. He must be personally holy.' 
2. Scripture View. — The Scriptures record, and with 
frequent repetition, the sinlessness of Christ, and ever 
hold the fact in vital connection with his redeeming 
work. It is emphasized as fitting and necessary in the 
atonement, and also as an element of special value. 2 In 
all the force of its own worth it is a revelation of the 
truths and motives which constitute the best efficien- 
cies of moral government. The vicarious sacrifice of 
the sinless Christ as the sole ground of forgiveness, 
scepters the divine law with a ruling efficiency, with a 
majesty of holiness, above all the power of punishment. 
Also, his holiness gives its grace to all other elements 
of value in the atonement. 

II. 

His Greatness. 

1. An Element of Atoning Value. — Whoever needs 
the service of a mediator is concerned to find one of 
the highest character and rank attainable. The minis- 
ter of the law vested with the pardoning power is offi- 
cially concerned therein. For the value of the media- 
tion is not in its personal influence with him, but from 
its rector al relations. He may already be personally 

'Ullman: " The Sinlessness of Jesus," pp. 259-261; Rev. Robert 
Hall . " On Substitution," Works, vol. i, p. 269. 
s 2 Cor. 5: 21; Heb. 7 : 26 ; 1 Pet. 3: 18; 1 John 3: 5. 



268 Elements of Sufficiency. 

disposed to clemency, but needing a proper ground for 
its exercise, so that law shall not suffer in its honor and 
authority. Such ground is furnished in the greatness 
and rank of the mediator. And the higher these quali- 
ties the more complete is the ground of forgiveness, or 
the more effective the support of law in all its rectoral 
offices. There is a philosophy in these facts, as mani- 
fest in our previous discussions. 1 Beyond this the case 
may be appealed to the common judgment. 

There is the same principle in the redemptive medi- 
ation of Christ. His greatness and rank go into his 
atonement as an element of the highest value. The 
Scriptures fully recognize and reveal the fact. It is 
with accordant reason and design that they so fre- 
quently and explicitly connect his greatness and rank 
with his redeeming work. 

2. An Infinite Value in Christ. — In the Scriptures, 

to which reference was just now made as connecting 

the greatness of Christ with his redemptive mediation, 

he is revealed as the Son of God and essentially divine; 

as in the form of God and equal with him in glory; as 

the Creator and Ruler of all things ; as Lord of the 

angels. 5 In him, therefore, divinity itself mediates in 

the redemption of man. Thus an infinite greatness 

and rank give rectoral support to the law of God in 

the ministry of forgiveness to repenting sinners. This 

is a fact of infinite sufficiency in the atonement of 

Christ. 

J Ch. viii, HI, 3, 4. 

•John I: 1-3, 14; Phil. 2: 6-8; CoL 1: 14-17; Heb. 1: 2, 3- 



The Voluntariness op Christ. 269 

III. 

His Voluntariness. 

1. A Necessary Fact. — The injustice of a coerced 
substitution of one in place of another would deprive 
it of all benefit in atonement for sin. But when the 
sacrifice is in the free choice of the substitute, its vol- 
untariness not only gives full place to every other ele- 
ment of atoning value, but is itself such an element. 

2. Christ a Voluntary Substitute. — On this fact the 
Scriptures leave us no reason for any question. And 
the frequency and fullness of their utterances respect- 
ing the freedom of Christ in the work of redemption 
give to that freedom all the certainty and significance 
which its truth requires. It is true that the Father 
gave the Son; that he sent him to be the Saviour of 
the world; that he spared him not, but delivered him 
up for us all; that he prepared for him a body for his 
priestly sacrifice in atonement for sin; but it is none 
the less true, that in all this the mind of the Son was at 
one with the mind of the Father; that he freely and 
gladly chose the incarnation in order to our redemp- 
tion; that he loved us and gave himself for us, an offer- 
ing and a sacrifice to God; that, with full power over 
his own life, he freely surrendered it in our redemp- 
tion. And the fact of this freedom is carried back of 
his incarnation and atoning suffering to the Son in his 
essential divinity and in his glory with the Father. 1 

3. Atoning Value. — The voluntariness of Christ 
crowns with its grace all the marvelous facts of his re- 

1 Psa. 40: 6-8; John 10: 11, 18; Phil. 2 : 6-8; Heb. 10: 5-9. 

18 



270 Elements of Sufficiency. 

deeming work. His atoning sacrifice, while in the pur- 
est free-willing, was at once in an infinite beneficence 
toward us, and in an infinite filial love and obedience 
toward his Father. And the will of the Father, in obe- 
dience to which the sacrifice is made, so far from limit- 
ing its atoning worth, provides for its highest sufficiency 
by opening such a sphere for the beneficence and filial 
obedience of the Son. Both have infinite moral worth 
with the Father. So he regards them, not in any com- 
mercial valuation, but as intrinsically good. Now for- 
giveness on such a ground is granted only on account 
of what is most precious with God, and therefore a 
vindication of his justice and holiness, of his rectoral 
honor and authority, in the salvation of repenting souls. 1 

IV. 

His Divine Sonship. 
1. Sense of Atoning Value. — The nearer a mediator 
stands in the relations of friendship with an offended 
party, the more persuasive will his intercession be. 
But this is a matter of mere personal influence, not of 
rectoral service. The party offended is regarded simply 
in his personal disposition, not as a minister of the law, 
with the obligations of his office; and, so far, the case 
has more affinity with the Satisfaction theory than with 
the Governmental. According to this theory, God 
needs no vicarious sacrifice for his personal propitiation. 
His need is for some provision which will render the 
forgiveness of sin consistent with his own honoj and 
authority as moral Ruler, and with the good of his 
* Rev. Robert Hall : " On Substitution." Works, vol. i, p. 269 



The Dittke Sonshep of Cheist. 271 

subjects. Hence, while we find an element of atoning 
value in the divine Sonship of Christ, we find it not in 
a matter of personal influence with the Father, but on 
a principle of rectoral service. This value lies in the 
moral worth which the Sonship of Christ gives to his 
redeeming work in the appreciation of the Father. The 
nature of it will further appear in the treatment of its 
measure in the next paragraph. 

2. Measure of Value. — The divine filiation of the 
Redeemer furnishes an element of great value in the 
atonement. This may be illustrated in connection with 
two facts of his Sonship. 

A Ground of the Father's Love. — The divine filia- 
tion of the Redeemer is original and singular. It is 
such as to be the ground of the Father's infinite love to 
his Son. On nothing are the Scriptures more explicit 
than on the fact of this love. Therein we have the 
ground of the Father's infinite appreciation of the re- 
deeming work of the Son. And the truth returns, that 
forgiveness is granted only on the ground of what is 
most precious with the Father. By all this precious- 
ness, as revealed in the light of the Father's love to the 
Son, his redemptive mediation, as the only and neces- 
sary ground of forgiveness, gives utterance to the 
authority of the divine law, and the obligation of 
its maintenance ; to the sacredness of moral rights 
and interests, and the imperative requirement of their 
protection ; to the evil of sin, and the urgency of its 
restriction. These are the very facts which give the 
highest, best ruling power to the divine law. And thus 
we have an element of sufficiency in the atonement. 



272 Elements op Sufficiency. 

A Revelation of his Love to Us. — The redeeming 
love of God toward us is most clearly seen in the light 
of his love for his own Son. Only in this view do we 
read the meaning of its divine utterances. 1 Why did 
the Father sacrifice the Son of his love in our redemp- 
tion? It could not have been from any need of per- 
sonal propitiation toward us. The redeeming sacrifice, 
itself the fruit of his love to us, is proof to the con- 
trary. He gave his Son to die for us that he might 
reach us in the grace of forgiveness and salvation. 
Why then did he so sacrifice the Son of his love? The 
only reason lies in the moral interests concerned, and 
which, in the case of forgiveness, required an atone- 
ment in their protection. But for his regard for these 
rights and interests, and, therefore, for the sacredness 
and authority of his law as the necessary means of theii 
protection, he might have satisfied the yearnings of his 
compassion toward us in a mere administrative forgive- 
ness. This he could not do consistently with either his 
goodness or his rectoral obligation. And rather than 
surrender the interests which his law must protect, he 
delivers up his own Son to suffering and death. There- 
fore, in this great sacrifice — infinitely great because of 
his love for his Son, and therein so revealed — in this 
great sacrifice, and with all the emphasis of its great- 
ness, God makes declaration of an infinite regard for 
the interests and ends of his moral government, and of 
an immutable purpose to maintain them. This declara- 
tion, in all the force of its divine verities, goes to the 
support of his government, and gives the highest honor 

1 John 3: 16; Rom. 8: 32; 1 John 4: 10. 



The Human Brotherhood of Christ. 273 

and ruling power to his law, while forgiveness is grant- 
ed to repenting sinners. 

V. 

His Human Brotherhood. 

1. Mediation must Express an Interest. — A strangei 
to a condemned party, and without reason for any 
special interest in his case, could not be accepted as a 
mediator in his behalf. A pardon granted on such 
ground would, in respect of all ends of government, 
be the same as one granted on mere sovereignty. The 
case is clearly different when, on account of intimate 
relations of friendship, or other special reasons of in- 
terest, the mediation is an expression of profound sym- 
pathy. Forgiveness on such an intercession is granted, 
not for any thing trivial or indifferent, and so evincing 
an indifference to the law, but only for what is re- 
garded as real, and a sufficient justification of the for- 
giveness. This gives support to law. It loses nothing 
of respect in the common judgment, nothing of its 
ruling force. And the profounder the sympathy of 
the mediator, the greater is the rectoral service of his 
mediation as the ground of forgiveness. 

2. The Principle in Atonement. — Christ appropriates 
the principle by putting himself into the most intimate 
relation with us. In the incarnation he clothes himself 
in our nature, partakes of our flesh and blood, and 
enters into brotherhood with us. 1 Herein is the reality 
and the revelation of a profound interest in his media- 
tion. The love and sympathy of this brotherhood he 

« John 1: 14; GaL 4: 4, 5; Heb. 2: 11, 14-16. 



274 Elements of Sufficiency. 

carries into the work of atonement. They are voiced 
in his tears and sorrows, in the soul agonies of Geth- 
semane, in the bitter outcryings of Calvary, and are 
still voiced in his intercessory prayers in heaven. Men 
and angels, in a spontaneous moral judgment, pronounce 
such a mediation a sufficient ground of forgiveness, 
and vindicate the divine administration therein. No 
shadow falls upon the divine rectitude. The divine law 
suffers no dishonor nor loss of ruling power. Thus the 
human brotherhood of Christ gives sufficiency to his 
atonement. 1 

VL 
His Suffering. 

1. Extreme Views. — In one view the suffering of 
Christ contains, in respect of our guilt or forgiveness, 
the whole atoning value. Only substitutional punish- 
ment so atones; and this just in the measure of the 
penal suffering endured. " This hypothesis measures 
the atonement not only by the number of the elect, but 
by the intensity and degree of the suffering to be en- 
dured for their sin. It adjusts the dimensions of the 
atonement to a nice mathematical point, and poises its 
infinite weight of glory even to the small dust of a 
balance. I need not say that the hand which stretches 
such lines, and holds such scales, is a bold one. Such 
a calculation represents the Son of God as giving so 
much suffering for so much value received in the souls 
given to him; and represents the Father as dispensing 
so many favors and blessings for so much value re- 
ceived in obedience and sufferings. This is the com- 

1 Rev. Robert Hall : " On Substitution ; " Works, voL i, p. 270. 



The Suffering of Christ. 275 

mercial atonement — the commercial redemption, with 
which Supralapsarian theology degrades the Gospel, 
and fetters its ministers; which sums up the worth of 
a stupendous moral transaction with arithmetic, and 
with its little span limits what is infinite." 1 This is 
the atonement by equal, as well as by identical penal- 
ty. It is really the atonement by equivalent penalty, 
which varies the case by the admission of a less degree 
of penal suffering, but only on account of its higher value 
arising from the rank of the substitute, while an abso- 
lute justice receives full satisfaction in behalf of the 
elect. 2 Such a doctrine has no lofty grandeur, nor 
profound philosophy. It blanks the grace of God in 
forgiveness. This is one extreme. 

In another view, it is denied that the suffering of 
Christ, especially in the facts subsequent to the incar 
nation, is essential to the atonement. The author just 
cited purposely omits "intensity of suffering" as a 
necessary element of atonement, and does not hesitate 
to assert that the incarnation of the Son of God is in 
itself such an act of condescension in behalf of sinners, 
that, as the only ground of forgiveness, it is a higher 
revelation of the divine justice than could be given by 
their eternal subjection to the merited punishment of 
sin. Such is the other extreme. 

2. A Necessary Element. — We are not honoring the 
divine love by an affected exaltation of one fact, how* 
ever stupendous, in the work of human redemption. 
Nor should we omit, as a necessary element, what the 

1 Dr. Jenkyn: "The Extent of the Atonement," pp. 21, 28. 
1 Chap, vii, II, 3. 



276 Elements of Sufficiency. 

Scriptures account to the atonement as the vital fact 
of its sufficiency. That the sufferings of Christ are 
so vital is clear from many texts previously cited or 
given by reference. They are even essential to the 
atoning service of other elements of sufficiency. The 
holiness, greatness, voluntariness, divine Sonship, and 
human brotherhood of Christ are, in themselves, but 
qualities of fitness for his redemptive mediation, and 
enter as elements of sufficiency into the atonement only 
as he enters into his sufferings. Without his sufferings 
and death there is really no atonement. This is the 
truth of Scripture. 

3. An Infinite Sufficiency. — The sufferings of Christ, 
which go into the atonement as a revelation of God in 
his regard for the principles and ends of his moral gov- 
ernment, and in his immutable purpose to maintain 
them, give to it an infinite sufficiency. We cannot fath- 
om these sufferings. We get the deeper sounding only 
as we hold them in association with the greatness and 
rank of Christ himself. 

The incarnation itself is a great fact of atoning value 
in the redemptive mediation of Christ. This is clear 
in our doctrine, however difficult it may be for that of 
Satisfaction so to appropriate it. It must go into such 
an atonement, if at all, either as a vicarious punish- 
ment or as a fact of vicarious righteousness. The 
Bchenie finds atonement in nothing else. Now the in- 
carnation itself could not be a fact of penal substitu- 
tion, because it could not be a punishment. Could it 
be a fact of sdcarious obedience, and imputable to the 
elect? We know not the Scripture exegesis nor the 



The Suffering of Christ. 277 

philosophy of the fact which can so interpret it. It is 
not such because a fact of obedience. The subordina- 
tion of the Son puts all his acts, even those of creation 
and providence, into the sphere of filial obedience. 
And we might as well account these acts an imputable 
personal righteousness in atonement for the elect as so 
to account his obedience in the free choice of the incar- 
nation. So difficult, if not absolutely impossible, is it 
for the doctrine of Satisfaction to appropriate the great 
fact of the incarnation as an element of atonement. 
Our doctrine has no difficulty in the appropriation. 
We require it to be neither a fact of penal substitution 
nor one of imputable personal righteousness. It goes 
into the atonement as one of the great facts of conde- 
scension and sacrifice in the work of redemption. 

The humiliation of Christ in the incarnation thus 
becomes a great fact of sufficiency in the atonement. 
His condescension to the form of an angel would have 
been much. How infinitely more the actual conde- 
scension! There are two marvelous facts: the self- 
emptying — eavrov kfcevooe — or self -divestment of a 
rightful glory in equality with God; and an assumption, 
instead, of the form of a servant in the likeness of men.' 
The Son of God, the brightness of his glory, and the 
express image of his person, 2 and dwelling in the glory 
of the Father, 8 condescends to the plane of humanity, 
and dwells here in the likeness of sinful flesh. 4 

The incarnation is not the limit of the humiliation 
and sacrifice of Christ: "And being found in fashion 
as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
'PM, 2:6, 1. a Heb, 1:3, 'John It: 5. 4 Rom. 8:3. 



278 Elements of Sufficiency. 

unto death, even the death of the cross." ' What 
scenes are disclosed in Gethsemane and on Calvary! 
Burdens of sorrow, depths of woe, intensities of agony ! 
An awful mystery of suffering! At such a cost the 
Saviour redeems the world. 

Nor have we the truest, deepest sense of the suffer- 
ings of Christ, except in the fact that he endured them 
as the Theanthropos. With the doctrine of a union of 
the divine and human natures in a unity of personality 
in Christ, and that in the incarnation he was truly the 
God-man, we know not either the theology or philoso- 
phy which may limit his sufferings to a mere human 
consciousness. And with the impassivity of his divine 
nature in the incarnation and atonement, many texts of 
Scripture, fraught with infinite treasures of grace and 
love, would be little more than meaningless words. 2 
On such a principle their exegesis would be superficial 
and false to their infinitely deeper meaning. The di- 
vine Son incarnate, and so incarnate in human nature 
as to unite it with himself in personal unity, could 
suffer, and did suffer in the redemption of the world. 3 

Such are the facts which combine in the atonement, 
and, on the principles previously explained, give to it 
an infinite sufficiency. They are God's revelation of 
himself in his moral government, for the vindication 
of his justice and law in the ministry of forgiveness, 

'Phil. 2: 8. 

•Acts 20: 28; Rom. 8: 32; Phil. 2: 6-11; Col. 1: 13-lf; Heb. 
1:3; 2: 9, 14-18; Rev. 1: 5, 6; 5: 6-13. 

»Dr. Shedd: "Theological Essays," p. 2*72; Dr. Raymond: " Sys 
tematic Theology," vol. ii, pp. 2*75-282. 



The Suffering of Chbist. 279 

for the restraint of sin, and for the protection of the 
rights and interests of his subjects. So much has he 
done, and so much required, that forgiveness might be 
consistent with these great ends. And now while on 
«such ground, but only on such, repenting souls are for- 
given and saved, he omits no judicial requirement, and 
surrenders no right nor interest either of himself or his 
subjects. 






280 The Atonement 



CHAPTER X. 

A LESSON FOR ALL INTELLIGENCES. 

1. Atonement for Man Only. — Speculative and fan- 
ciful minds, forgetting the verities of Scripture, may 
reach the thought not only of the sufficiency, but also 
of the actuality, of an atonement for moral beings other 
than men. 1 The Scriptures, however, limit it to the 
human race. Nor would any superabundance of its 
grace, nor any further prevalence of sin, warrant the 
inference of a wider extension. There are other orders 
under the power and curse of sin. a Here is the pros- 
tration of lofty powers, the corruption of once holy 
natures, and an awful lapse of moral beings from the 
highest happiness into the prof oundest woe. Nor have 
they any power of self-recovery. There is, therefore, 
in their case all the need of redemption arising out of 
an utter moral ruin. Nor will the divine love allow 
the supposition that, however just their doom, they 
have fallen below the reach of its pity. Yet the Script- 
ures give no intimation of an atonement for them, but 
a contrary one. Christ becomes our brother by an in- 
carnation in our nature, that through death he might 
ledeem us. 3 And we have this significant utterance of 
limitation : " For verily he took not on him the nature 
of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." * 

1 As Origen did. a 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6. 

8 Heb. 2:14, 16. * Heb. 2: 16. 



a Lesson for All Intelligences. 281 

The passage, viewed contextually and in its own terms, 
clearly limits redemption in its directness and actuality 
to the human race. 

2. Broader Relation to Moral Beings. — An atonement 
in the sacrifice of Christ, while for man only, may yet 
have a lesson of profound moral truth for other and for 
&1] intelligences. 1 It is such a truth, and of such moral 
significance, that it must deeply interest all moral be- 
ings to whom a knowledge of it may come. 

And the notion of a wide extension of such informa- 
tion is no conjecture, nor even a mere rational idea. 
Rational it is; for the atonement is too great a truth, 
and too broad and intimate in its relations, for any 
narrow limitation. The long preparation for the re- 
deeming Advent was known in heaven as on earth. 
Angels often appear amid the scenes of that prepara- 
tion. The redeeming Lord comes forth from the midst 
of their adoring myriads. Many are with him in the 
lowly scenes of his humiliation, deeply interested in 
him and in his great work. They form his triumphal 
escort in the ascension, and all their hosts, in glad 
acclaim, welcome his return. Here are means and evi- 
dences of a widely extended knowledge of our redemp- 
tion. And the fact of such a knowledge has a sure 
ground in the Scriptures. 3 The references given are 
sufficient for the point made, though there are many 
other texts and facts of like import. 3 

Nor need we have any perplexity respecting either 

1 Gilbert: "The Christian Atonement," pp. 218-220, 352, 353. 

1 Bph. 3 : 10 ; 1 Pet. 1:12; Rev. 5 : 11-13. 

' Dr. Chalmers : " Astronomical Discourses," Discourse iv. 



282 The Atonement 

the possibility or the means of such universal informa- 
tion. Moral beings, ever steadfast in holiness and obe- 
dience, cannot be in entire isolation, however remote 
their dwelling-places. They have a common center of 
anion and intercourse in God, as the one Creator and 
Father of all. " What, then, can He who made them 
he at any loss how to instruct them? Does one sun 
dart his beams above, below, around, as well as upon a 
single spot of earth; and cannot the central light of 
God convey revelation to others as well as to us ? Is 
there no angel to bear the news ? no prophet among 
them to receive the inspiration ? To them, then, as to 
principalities and powers in heavenly places, may be 
made known the manifold wisdom of God in the 
Church." ' 

While, therefore, the lesson of the atonement surely 
opens its pages to the reading of all intelligences, the 
fact itself, and the great truths which it reveals, cannot 
fail profoundly to interest and impress all minds. A 
little attention will give us the facts for the full veri- 
fication of this position. 

3. One Moral Constitution of ATI. — Divine revela- 
tion makes known to us the existence of other orders of 
moral beings. With this knowledge even reason hears, 
respecting each order, the one creative fiat of Godhead . 
"In our image, after our likeness." 3 And, formed in 
the one image of God, they have a oneness of moral 
constitution. As made known in the Scriptures, they 
clearly have a moral nature like our own, and, there- 
fore, in the likeness of each other. 

1 Richard Watson : " Sermons," vol. i, p. 187. "Gen. 1 : 26. 



a Lesson for All Intelligences. 283 

4. The same Moral Motivity in All. — However nu- 
merous their orders or vast the scale of their grada- 
tions, yet, with a oneness of moral nature, they are one 
in moral motivity. The same divine truths which im- 
press one may impress another, or that interest and 
sway us may interest and sway all. The soul of each 
is open to the practical revelation of God in his justice, 
holiness, and love; in his marvelous works of creation 
and providence; in his universal Fatherhood; in all the 
behests of his will. 

5. The Cross a Power with All. — The revelation of 
God and truth in the atonement may give to all their 
profoundest religious conceptions, and move them with 
a pathos of love and a power of moral influence above 
every other. In the marvelous adjustments of the in- 
finite wisdom there is not wanting a masterly correla- 
tion of all moral natures to the grandest truth in the 
universe. All holy intelligences are open to the moral 
power of the cross. 

6. Higher Orders Interested in Redemption. — The 
facts of this interest might be appropriated to a further 
illustration of truths previously given. The nature of 
the interest as made known, the facts which it regards, 
and the measure of it, all signify a likeness of moral 
cognition and motivity to our own, and, therefore, a 
capacity for the apprehension and practical realization 
of the great truths revealed in the atonement. 

The sympathy of higher orders with us is made known 
by the Redeemer himself : " I say unto you, that like- 
wise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repent- 
eth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which 



284 The Atonement 

need no repentance." " Likewise, I say unto you, there 
is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one 
sinner that repenteth." ' These words are very direct 
and explicit, and entirely sufficient. Yet there are 
many other words and facts which convey a like sense. 
Angels often press into the scenes of human history, 
and not as curious spectators, but as deeply interested 
in human welfare. And their profounder sympathy, as 
evinced in their exceeding joy over our repentance, is 
given in an association with illustrative facts of human 
experience — as in the parables of the lost piece of sil- 
ver, the lost sheep, and the prodigal son — which clothe 
it in the likeness of our own sympathies. 2 Only, the 
sympathies of these higher orders are broader and 
deeper. Ours largely conform to the laws of our more 
special relationships, and are much subject to what is 
merely conventional, while theirs are free from such 
limitations. With them all intelligences are a common 
brotherhood. Hence their sympathies go out alike to 
all. So they come down to us. And, with the fullness 
of their love and profound apprehension of our miseries 
in sin, they have the deepest compassion for us. Hence 
their exceeding joy over our repentance. They view 
it as our escape from the misery and death of sin, and 
our entrance upon the highway of life, with its termi- 
nus amid their own thrones and glories. This is their 
exceeding joy. 

But their joy has other impulses than such sympathy 
with us. It specially has an impulse in a profound love 

'Luke 15:7, 10. 

* Dr. Chalmers: " Astronomical Discourses," Discourse v 






a Lesson for All Intelligences. 285 

and loyalty to Christ. They know that our salvation 
is dear to him. Their whole nature is profoundly en- 
listed with him in the work of saving us. And when 
they witness his success and his own satisfaction in our 
salvation, they have exceeding joy — their joy welling 
up from the profoundest love and loyalty to him. 

In such facts respecting the sympathy of higher 
orders with us, especially in its relation to our salva- 
tion and to Christ as the Saviour, we are assured of 
their knowledge of the great redemption in his blood, 
and of their profound interest therein. Chosen mes- 
sengers from their own mighty hosts welcomed his re- 
deeming advent, and in gladdest strains proclaimed him 
a Saviour. 1 In the holy of holies skillfully wrought 
cherubim with intent gaze hovered over the mercy-seat, 
the place of atonement and symbol of the atonement 
in the blood of Christ; and thus they symbolized the 
profound interest of the angels in the study of the 
mysteries of redemption. 2 Nor could they fail of such 
a knowledge of the atonement as would give them the 
practical force of its great truths. 

7. Universal Lordship of Christ. — The exaltation of 
Christ in supreme Headship over the Church, and in 
universal Lordship over the angels, is a truth clearly 
given in the Scriptures. 8 The passages noted in the 
reference are most explicit, and full of the loftiest ut- 
terances. Christ is Head of the Church universal, 
whether on earth or in heaven, and supreme Lord over 
all intelligences. 

»Luke 2: 9-14. a Exod. 25 : 18, 22; Heb. 9:5; 1 Pet. 1 : 12. 
•Eph. 1: 20-23; 3: 10; Phil. 2: 9-11; 1 Pet. 3: 22. 
19 



286 The Atonement 

Such royal investiture of the exalted Christ is in 
reward of his humiliation and redeeming death. A 
recurrence to the texts given by reference in this con- 
nection will make this clear to any mind. We may cite 
one in illustration. With its connection its words are 
these : " Who, being in the form of God, thought it 
not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself 
of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a serv- 
ant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being 
found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and be- 
came obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given 
him a name which is above every name: that at the 
name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in 
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 

Such exaltation has not respect to Christ simply in 
his divinity. The texts which reveal it give a con- 
trary sense. Nor is the idea of such an exaltation of 
divinity in itself simply at all admissible. 

Much less may we hold this royal investiture simply 
in respect of the human nature of Christ. This is for- 
bidden by the nature of the powers and prerogatives 
with which he is clothed. Saints and angels, principal- 
ities and powers, all holy intelligences, are made sub- 
ject to him. They must render him the fullest obedi- 
ence and the profoundest worship. His divine nature, 
therefore, must not be considered as separate from him 
in this marvelous exaltation, else Christianity be justly 
accounted the vastest system of idolatry ever estab- 






a Lesson for All Intelligences. 287 

Hshed. It would be such a system, and not only on 
earth, but also in heaven, and throughout the universe. 

It is the incarnate Son, the Christ in two natures, and 
yet in unity of personality, that is so exalted. It is the 
redeeming God-man, the veritable Thecmthropos who 
receives such royal investiture. As such he is worthy 
of it all; worthy in his divinity, and worthy because 
of his redeeming work. It is fitting that he who 
stooped so low should be exalted so high. 

Such enthronement as the Saviour is the peculiar 
glory of the Son. There is thus claimed for him the 
obedience and worshipful homage of all intelligences. 
It is the peculiar glory of the Father that he is the 
Creator and Ruler of all things. When creation and 
providence are ascribed to the Son it is in the deepest 
truth and reality of both, but never excluding the idea 
of his subordination therein to the Father. And such 
facts are set forth in the Gospel, not as his peculiar 
glory, but specially in connection with his redeeming 
work, that we might be assured of its sufficiency. 1 

This distinction of the peculiar glory of each is 
clearly given in the Scriptures. 2 In the first passage 
noted in the reference, the words of the holy worship- 
ers are: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, 
and honor, and power: for thou hast created all things, 
and for thy pleasure they are and were created ;" and 
in the second: "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to 
receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, 
and honor, and glory, and blessing." 

^ohn 1: 1-4, 14; CoL 1: 14-18- Heb. 1: 3. 
•Rev. 4: 10, 11; 5: 11, 12. 



288 The Atoto:ment 

It may seem strange that Christ, as the Saviour of 
man and exalted in our nature, should be enthroned in 
sovereignty over angels as over saints. It is a note- 
worthy fact. Nor is it without its reasons. In his 
divinity he is worthy of such honor and glory. And it 
Ls fitting that in his exaltation he should receive a do- 
minion reaching far beyond the immediate subjects cf 
his redemption. Then his red coming work touches the 
heart of angels, and of all holy intelligences, as nothing 
else can. They will ever find their highest reason for 
a worshipful loyalty to his throne in that he ransomed 
us from the power of sin by the sacrifice of himself. In 
the profoundest sympathy with us in the miseries of 
sin and death, they have the profoundest love and loy- 
alty to him for our salvation. 

Yet this is no monopolized glory on the part of the 
redeeming Lord. His royal investiture, the bowing of 
every knoe to him, the confession of every tongue that 
he is Lord — all is " to the glory of God the Father." 
"We have given two celestial scenes as opened in the 
Revelation: one, in which the Father receives univers- 
al homage as the Creator and Ruler of all things; 
the other, in which the Son receives universal homage 
as ihe Lamb slain. There is no dissonance here. Then 
in a third scene, as we behold the worshipers and listen 
to their devout strains, we catch the fullness of the di- 
vine harmony : "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and 
power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and 
unto the Lamb, for ever and ever." ' 

Now, grouping the several facts under the universal 
1 Rev. 5 : 13. 



A Lesson fob All Intelligences. 289 

Lordship of Christ, we are again assured that the 
knowledge of his atonement comes to all intelligences, 
and in a manner profoundly to interest them. Its mar- 
velous truth and grace, its revelation of God in his jus- 
tice, and holiness, and love, must occupy their minds 
and take profoundest hold upon all the practical forces 
of their moral being. 

And we thus find that great ends are answered by 
the universal Lordship of the exalted Christ. As he is 
enthroned over all, so is he set before all. This gives 
to all a knowledge of his redeeming work. And the 
two facts of his humiliation and exaltation combine in 
a universal lesson of the highest moral and religious 
truth. There is such a lesson in the atonement. It is 
fraught with a manifold divine wisdom. We may 
here recall in mind the words of St. Paul, previously 
given by reference, " wherein he speaks of the work of 
redemption through Christ as containing a revelation, 
or exhibition, of the manifold — many-sided, or many- 
colored — wisdom of God — t\ noXvnoi/ctXog oo(f)ia rov Qeov. 1 
The precise connection of thought in which the expres- 
sion occurs it is not necessary to point out: it bears the 
stamp of a phrase coined by the apostle to embody the 
feeling produced in his mind by deep and protracted 
reflection on the gracious purpose of God in Jesus 
Christ. After long, rapt meditation on the sublime 
theme, Paul feels that the divine idea of redemption 
has many aspects. The pure light of divine wisdom 
revealed in the Gospel is resolvable into many colored 
rays, which together constitute a glorious spectrum 
'Eph. 3: 10. 



290 The Atonement 

presented to the admiring view of principalities and 
powers in heavenly places, and of all men on earth 
whose eyes are open to see it." ' But it is not simply 
for their admiration. The atonement has infinite treas- 
ures of most salutary truth. Such truth reaches all 
intelligences, specially through the universal Lordship 
of Christ, and rules them through the practical force 
of the ideas and motives which it embodies. This is 
the divinest moral government. 

8. Grandeur of the Atonement. — We depart not 
from the position that the atonement is directly and 
actually for man only, but none the less hold that of an 
infinitely broader practical relation to intelligent be- 
ings. 

Divine moral government is one and universal, as 
the law of gravitation is one and universal. This one 
law holds sway over the earth, and the planets, and all 
the stellar worlds. So moral law, in its deeper princi- 
ples, is one over man, and angels, and all intelligences. 
The material and moral systems are widely different: 
in the one, a law of necessitating force; in the other, a 
law of obligation, with freedom of the subjects. Here 
the highest ruling forces are in the moral ideas asso- 
ciated with the law, and in the sanctions which enforce 
its duties. As previously stated, their governing power 
is conditioned on certain moral motivities in the sub- 
jects. As the moral constitution of subjects is so cor- 
related to the moral law that there may be a profound 
realization of its obligation together with all the higher 
motives of duty, so, and only thus, has the moral law a 
1 Dr. Bruce: " The Humiliation of Christ," p. 363 



a Lesson foe All Intelligences. 291 

higL ruling power. Even penalty, as a salutary force 
of law, must take its place on such principles and in 
association with such facts. 

The atonement in Christ takes its place in such a 
universal moral government. As an atonement for sin 
it has its application to the smallest segment of the 
moral system; but in its significance and ruling forces 
it has a universal application. And in the marvelous 
economies of his wisdom and love, God has provided 
for its highest benedictions in all such breadth of re- 
lation. Illustrations we already have in the universal 
information of the atonement; in its ruling force, by 
virtue of its own facts and the adjustment of all moral 
natures to its influence; in the universal Lordship of 
Christ as the special means of such information and 
influence. Thus as the highest revelation of God in 
his holiness, and justice, and love; in his invincible 
hostility to sin; in his immutable purpose to maintain 
his own honor and authority, and sacredly to guard 
the rights and interests of his subjects, the atonement 
takes its place in the universal moral system. With 
all the potencies of practical truth it addresses itself to 
all minds. 

As the highest revelation of infinite love, the atone- 
ment will bind all holy intelligences in the deeper love 
to the one enthroned Lord of all, and so, with all their 
distinctions of order and grade, bind them in love to 
one another. "And the principle which shall harmonize 
this system is at once seen, if it be assumed that when 
the Eternal Word was made flesh — when He who was 
'before all things and in whom all things consist' hum- 



292 The. Atonement 

bled himself to the level of mortality, and, ' passing by 
the nature of angels,' took upon him a nature 'some- 
what lower ' — there was a purpose involved which goes 
beyond the immediate results of the propitiatory work 
of the Redeemer. So that when his vicarious functions 
shall have leached their completion, the union of the 
divine and human natures shall continue to bear a rela- 
tion to the social economy of the great immortal family 
in the heavens, and shall forever subsist as the prin- 
ciple or the reason of communication and harmony 
among all ranks." 1 This view, so rational in thought 
and forceful in expression, is far clearer and more 
forceful when read in the light of such facts and prin- 
ciples as we have given in this chapter. 

When, therefore, we assert a necessity for the atone- 
ment and set forth its benefits, we must, for any ade- 
quate conception, take an infinitely broader view than 
the present sphere of humanity, or even the eternal 
destiny of the race. Because the one law of gravita- 
tion is universal, the disorder of one world might, if 
uncorrected, become a far extended evil; while its cor- 
rection might be a good extending far "beyond itself, 
and reaching even to all worlds — except to any wan- 
dering star lost in the blackness of darkness forever. 
So the evil of sin in this world might, with the license 
of impunity, become a far extended evil ; while its 
treatment under the atonement may become a far ex- 
tended good, reaching even to all intelligences — except 
the incorrigible or finally lost, fitly compared to a wan- 
dering and forever lost star. 3 And such treatment of 
1 Isaac Taylor: "Saturday Evening," p. 370. * Jude 13. 



a Lesson for All Intelligences. 298 

gin, with forgiveness on a true faith in Christ, may be, 
and no doubt is, an infinitely higher moral good to 
other intelligences than its unconditional doom under 
the penalty of justice. 1 

Thus all minds receive the great lesson of the atone- 
ment, with its potency of moral truth and pathos of 
love. And all intelligences, faithful or fallen, must 
bow the knee at the name of Christ. In the lesson of 
his cross all will learn the profoundest truth of the 
divine holiness and love; of the evil and hopeless doom 
of unatoned or unrepented sin; of the obligation and 
blessedness of obedience and love. All holy intelli- 
gences, bound in deeper love and loyalty to the divine 
throne by the moral power of the atonement, will for- 
ever stand the firmer in their obedience and bliss. And 
the cross, once the stigma of most heinous crime and 
the sign of the deepest abasement of Christ, shall 
henceforth symbolize to all intelligences the sublimest 
moral truth in the universe. 

1 Richard Watson : " Sermons," vol, i, pp. 18t-189. 






294 The Atonement. 



CHAPTER XI. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE ATONEMENT. 

IX7E must not omit all notice of the stock objections 
to the atonement. Yet they have little relevancy 
as against the doctrine which we maintain, and, there- 
fore, require no elaborate refutation. 

I. 

An Iiirationai, Scheme. 

Opponents of fundamental Christian truth are great 
on the rational, and especially on the irrational. A 
glance of their marvelous philosophic acumen detects 
the disconformity of a doctrine to reason. This is con- 
clusive against it. Thus the atonement is summarily 
dismissed as an irrational scheme. 

1. A Pretentious Assumption. — Such an objection 
little becomes the limitations of human reason. In our 
own resources we but feebly grasp the principles and 
requirements of divine moral government, and, there- 
fore, cannot pronounce against either a necessity for 
the atonement, or the wisdom of its measures, or the 
beneficence of its results. Human reason, all-unequal 
to its devisement, is all-incompetent to a conclusive 
judgment against it. And while with us the govern- 
ment of a provincial municipality is still a perplexing 
problem, we do but arrogantly pronounce against the 
wisdom of the atonement in the infinitely broader 



Objections. 295 

sphere of divine moral government. The more cer- 
tainly is this true since the deliverances of the highest 
reason accord to the economy of redemption in Christ 
an infinite excellence and wisdom. 

2. Analogies of Providence. — If the scheme of atone 
ment is in analogy to the general course of providence,, 
the fact wholly voids this objection, except on the 
broad ground that the general course of providence is 
irrational. But such an assumption would bar all title 
to a respectful hearing on the part of any one profess- 
ing faith in Christianity, or even in God. 

The vicarious principle is the most common law of 
human society in every form of its constitution. 1 And 
it is no arbitrary appointment, but springs inevitably 
from the providential relations of human life. In the 
family, in society, in the commonwealth, one serves an- 
other, suffers for another. One takes upon himself 
labor and suffering on account of the sin of another, 
averts evil from him, and brings him good. Here is 
the vicarious principle. Human life is full of it. 

Such is the mediation of Christ in vicarious suffering. 
Nor is the principle really changed in the fact that his 
sufferings meet a special exigency of moral government 
in order to the forgiveness and salvation of sinners. 
Any objection respecting the justice of the case will be 
met elsewhere, and really is not pertinent here, because 
this exigency of moral government is met in the medi- 
ation of Christ by vicarious suffering, not by substi- 
tuted punishment. Only the latter element could carry 
the atonement out of such analogy to very many vicari- 
1 Butler: "Analogy of Religion," Part ii, chap. v. 



296 The Atonement. 

ous facts of human life, as to deny it the vindication of 
that analogy. And neither revelation, nor the general 
course of providence, nor reason itself, pronounces the 
scheme of vicarious atonement irrational. 

n. 

A Violation of Justice. 
No objection has been urged either more violently or 
persistently against the atonement than this. A few 
words, however, will answer for all the defense required 
of us. 

1. No Infringement of Rights. — Injustice comes with 
the refusal of dues, with the deprivation of laAvful pos- 
sessions or inalienable rights, with wrongful injury or 
unmerited punishment, not otherwise. Such facts are 
a violation of justice, because a violation of rights. 
Without this there can be no injustice. On this ground 
we have an easy answer to the objection of injustice in 
the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. Others may answer 
for their own doctrine. 

2. Analogy of Vicarious Suffering. — Men often en- 
dure toil and suffering, and jeopard life itself, in behalf 
of others. They do this electively, cheerfully, not of 
coercion. Do they suffer any violation of rights there- 
by? Is any injustice done them? Does their owd 
reason or the common moral judgment so pronounce? 
Surely not. Indeed, both approve such vicarious sacri- 
fice, and reprehend its refusal on proper exigency. 

3. Atonement Clear of Injustice. — That the vicarious 
sufferings of Christ meet a special requirement of moral 
government in order to our forgiveness and salvation 









Objections. 297 

introduces no element of injustice. Nor did Christ, in 
all his relations to the will of the Father respecting the 
deepest sufferings which he endured, ever evince any 
sense of injury or wrong. Nor was there any wrong 
to him: for, while he so suffered in obedience to the 
will of the Father, it was none the less his own elec- 
tion in the purest freedom. And it is no punishment 
>f one for the sin of another. All injustice, therefore, 
is excluded. 

4. Vantage-ground against Moral Theory. — This is a 
common objection with those who maintain the Moral 
theory of atonement. We claim a position of the high- 
est advantage against them. They admit the sufferings 
and death of Christ as consequent upon his redemptive 
mission, and as for men in this sense. They admit the 
severity of his sufferings and the shameful manner of 
his death. But, on their scheme, his extreme suffering 
is only incidental to his saving work, while on ours 
it is the necessary ground of forgiveness and salvation. 
Therefore, our doctrine will vindicate such a divine 
economy, while theirs will not. 

The real problem is in such suffering of the innocent 
in behalf of the guilty. "State this fact as indeter- 
minately as you please ; rigidly adhere to the coldest 
and most undefining forms of language ; allow only that 
the innocent suffered for the advantage of the guilty ; 
what possible abatement of the charge of injustice do 
you supply? The difficulty, if any — the mystery, the 
awful mystery — remains in full proportion behind the 
flimsy cloud. That mystery is, the innocent, the vir- 
tuous, the perfect One, has borne tremendous agony. 



298 The Atonement. 

This is the point of startling wonder, whatever the re- 
sult : of wonder to be diminished only by the exigency, 
the mighty good accruing, not otherwise to be at- 
tained." 1 The profound exigency is the vindicatory 
fact. Intense vicarious suffering, arising in a specially 
providential economy, and without a sufficient reason 
in attainable good, is of impossible defense. Such is 
the case with the Moral view. But the doctrine of a 
real atonement in Christ, with the necessity of his re- 
demptive sufferings as the means of salvation, and the 
infinite good attained, gives us the clearest and fullest 

theodicy. 

III. 

A Releasement from Duty. 

This objection, if intelligently and honestly made, 
must have in view some particular doctrine of atone- 
ment. Otherwise it has neither pertinence nor force, 
whatever weight logical validity would give it. 

1. Fatal, if Valid. — No doctrine of atonement could 
stand against such an objection if grounded in truth. 
But duty has no surer ground, and no more imperative 
behest respecting all that constitutes the highest moral 
and religious worth, than in the atonement itself. Hence 
any doctrine really open to such an objection must be 
in error. Nor will the history of doctrines permit the 
assertion that no one has been so open. Antinomian- 
ism itself has a place in that history. And any com- 
mercial theory, or doctrine of atonement by absolute 
substitution in precept and penalty, is open to this ob- 
jection, however its advocates disclaim the implication. 
1 Bev. Joseph Gilbert : " The Christian Atonement," p. 93. 



Objections. 299 

A punishment so endured for us, and a righteousness 
so wrought on our account, cannot again be required of 
us under any claim of justice or sanction of law. But 
the doctrine which we maintain is not answerable in 
such a case. 

% Nugatory on a True Doctrine. — On a true doctrine 
the atonement in Christ is simply the ground of for- 
giveness, not the merited punishment of sin. Hence 
we are guilty all the same, though now with the privi- 
lege of forgiveness and salvation. And for such a 
result through redemptive grace there is required a 
true repentance for sin and a true faith in Christ; and, 
as the condition of his continued favor, a true obedience 
to his will. A measure of forgiveness in behalf of 
rebels would surely be no discharge from the obliga- 
tion and requirement of future loyalty, and especially 
when the continuance of the restored franchisements is 
conditioned on fidelity in future loyalty. Such are the 
facts respecting the atonement. And in all its truth 
and lesson it makes duty specially imperative and re- 
sponsible, and presses its claim with a weight of obli- 
gation and a power of motive peculiar to itself. It is, 
therefore, wholly and forever clear of this objection. 

IV. 

An Aspersion of Divine Goodness. 
This, also, must have in view some special doctrine 
of atonement. Otherwise, it is so manifestly ground- 
less that it can hardly be a mere fallacy, and must be a 
sophistry; not a mere error in its logic, but an inten- 
tional error. 



800 The Atonement. 

1. Reason of Law and Penalty. — Whence comes law? 
And wherefore penalty ? Is their origin in the cruelty 
of rulers? Is revengefulness the moving impulse of 
legislators and ministers of law ? Is vindictiveness the 
inspiration of punishment ? Is implacableness the sole 
restraint of the pardoning power ? No man can think 
so. The public good requires both law and penalty. 
Here is their source. This fact does not give us the 
highest principles of divine moral government, yet has 
enough analogy for illustration. Rulers in human gov- 
ernment, if by personal qualities well fitted for their 
office, cherish infinitely higher sentiments than the 
present objection would imply in application to them. 
With rulers of the highest and best qualities clemency 
would often release the criminal when the public good 
constrains his punishment. And they should have the 
honor of a wise and beneficent administration rather 
than suffer the reproach of vindictiveness. 

2. iVb Aspersion of Goodness. — Now if the punitive 
ministries of justice imply no vindictiveness, but evince 
the wisdom and beneficence of government, how does 
the refusal of pardon so imply ? Then how would the 
requirement of such provision as would render forgive- 
ness consistent with the ends of government show any 
implacability ? And then how does the atonement, as 
necessary to the consistency of forgiveness with the 
infinite interest of moral government, impeach the 
clemency of the divine Ruler, or asperse his goodness ? 
When this is shown, other questions may be asked. 
Until then they are not necessary. 

3. Divine Love Magnified. — The atonement has its 



Objections. 301 

original in the divine love. Nor has it any other pos 
sible source. The human mind is powerless for the 
original conception of such a scheme. Nor could it 
have birth in the mind of angel or archangel, but in 
God only. And with him its primary impulse must 
arise in his love. It could not arise in any perfection 
of knowledge, or power, or justice, or holiness. There 
must be a profound sympathy with human woe. An 
infinite compassion must yearn over the miseries of sin. 
Love only can answer to such requirement. " God is 
love." * Herein is the primary impulse of human re- 
demption, and the ever active force in all its infinite 
sacrifices. To this one source the Scriptures ever 
trace it. 

And the divine love, so moving to an atonement for 
sin, must meet the sacrifices which it requires. These 
are infinitely great. A plan of human redemption 
must be adjusted to the profoundest interests of the 
moral universe. The infinite exigency reaches into 
heaven for the Son of the Father's love. He must be 
the atoning sacrifice. He must be delivered up to 
humiliation and death. The divine love answers to 
the infinite exigency. 2 And while the cross stands as 
the symbol of the atonement, and it is written "God 
so loved the world," that atonement casts no aspersion 
upon his clemency, but infinitely magnifies his love. 

1 1 John 4: 16. 

•John 3: 16; Rom. 5: 6-10; 8: 32; 1 John 4: 10. 

20 



302 Extent of the Atonement. 



CHAPTER XH. 

UNIVERSALITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 

A RMINIANISM and Calvinism, the two leading 
evangelical systems, inevitably join issue on the ex- 
tent of the atonement. The former, by its principles of 
moral government, its doctrine of sin, and the cardinal 
facts of its soteriology, is determined to a theory of 
universality. The latter, by its doctrine of divine de- 
crees, its principles of soteriology, and the nature of 
the atonement which it maintains, is determined to a 
theory of limitation. Hence, as previously noted, the 
question of extent is more than a question of fact; it 
concerns the very doctrine of atonement. It specially 
concerns the doctrine of Satisfaction. If in the divine 
destination the atonement is alike for all, and actually 
as well as potentially sufficient for all, then that doc- 
trine cannot be true. Otherwise, all must be saved. 
Its advocates will not dissent from this. 

There is a modified Calvinism which holds a general 
atonement; but the fact does not affect the correctness 
of our statement respecting Calvinism proper. And 
this modified view rather shifts than voids the very 
serious difficulties of limitation, or replaces them with 
others equally grave. 

The new theory originated early in the seventeenth 
century with Camero, an eminent Protestant and pro- 
fessor of theology in France. Amyraut, Placaeus, and 



Detepmtntng Law. 308 

Cappellus were his associates, and active in the develop- 
ment and propagation of his views. Baxter is in their 
succession. Many Congregationalists and New School 
Presbyterians have held substantially the same theory. 1 

The doctrine, while maintaining a general atonement, 
holds in connection with it special election and a sov- 
ereign application of grace in the salvation of the elect. 
Christ died for all. The Gospel, with all its overtures 
of grace may, therefore, be preached to all in the fullest 
consistency. But all reject its proffered grace. They 
do this from a moral inability to its acceptance; yet 
responsibly, because of a natural ability to the accept- 
ance. Then God interposes, and sovereignly applies the 
grace of atonement in the salvation of the elect. 

In addition to the two distinctions of supralapsarian 
and infralapsarian election, this doctrine really gives us 
a third, which might be called infraredemptarian. A 
universal atonement could have no universal gracious 
purpose when beforehand God had elected a part tc 
the benefit of its grace, and treated the rest with at 
least an utterly dooming pretention. Indeed, such a 
previous election and a universal atonement cannot 
stand together. An election after redemption may be 
consistent with this modified Calvinistic soteriology. 
The theory, however, is really valueless for the relief 
of the very serious difficulties which beset the doctrine 
of a limited atonement. But we here dismiss it as not 
directly in the line of the present question. 

This further may be said, without any retraction re 
specting Calvinism, that there is nothing in its deeper 

'M'Clintock & Strong: " Cyclopaedia," vol. i, pp. 209, 210. 



304 Extent of tub Atonement. 

principles to limit the atonement, had it pleased God 
to destinate it for all. Such a divine sovereignty as 
the system asserts was surely free to embrace all in 
the covenant of redemptive grace. But as the atone- 
ment of Satisfaction, both by its own nature and by 
^11 the principles of soteriology scientifically united 
ivith it must issue in the actual salvation of all for 
whom it is made, and as actual salvation is limited in 
fact, therefore such an atonement must have been 
limited in its divine destination. So it is held. 

The question of extent in the atonement has its is- 
sue and interest mainly between Arminianism and Cal- 
vinism. Historically, its polemics is specially between 
them. Nor shall we turn aside in this discussion to 
treat its comparatively indifferent relation to other 
schemes. Both of these systems maintain the reality 
of an atonement in Christ as the only and necessary 
ground of forgiveness and salvation. And as the 
question of its nature lies specially between them, so 
does that of its extent. 

L 

Determining Law of Extent. 
1. Intrinsic Sufficiency for AU.—li the son of a king 
should mediate in behalf of rebellious subjects, and so 
much should be required, in whatever form of personal 
sacrifice, for each individual forgiveness, then the ex- 
tent of the forgiveness provided would be determined 
by the amount of sacrifice endured by the mediating 
son. The atonement in the mediation of Christ is on a 
different principle. So it is maintained, and has been, 



Determining Law. 305 

with the exception of the now generally discarded 
Commercial scheme of an identical or equal penalty by 
substitute. Now by common consent the atonement is 
the same in intrinsic worth, and infinitely sufficient for 
all, whether really for all or for only a part. Hence, 
if there be a limitation to a part of mankind, it must 
be the result of a limiting divine destination, and not 
from any want of an intrinsic sufficiency for all. So 
far there is now no reason for any polemics between 
Calvinism and Arminianism. 

2. Divine Destination Determinative. — The redemp- 
tion of men in a mass, and merely as such, or of hu- 
manity as a nature, and therefore of all individual 
partakers of the nature, is inherently erroneous and 
false to the true doctrine of atonement. The atone- 
ment is for sinners as such, and, therefore, must be 
directly for them as individual sinners. It is only as 
such that they may be either condemned or forgiven. 
It is only, therefore, in their distinct personalities that 
they can be either in need of an atonement or the re- 
cipents of its grace. This notion of the redemption of 
human nature as such, and therefore of all its indi- 
viduations in personality, has never gained any formal 
position in Arminian theology; yet it has not been 
entirely absent from individual opinion and utterance. 
It has, probably, commended itself to some as strongly 
favoring the universality of the atonement. If founded 
in truth it would be conclusive of the question. It is 
not founded in the truth, nor can it be; and for the 
reason previously given. Nor is such a position at all 
necessary to the grand truth of a universal atonement, 



806 Extent of the Atonement. 

The atonement is for individual men by virtue of a 
divine intention. While, therefore, sufficient for all, it is 
really for all or for a part only, according to that same 
divine intention. We are so writing in full knowledge 
of the fact that such is precisely and explicitly the Cal- 
vinistic position. We shun it not on that account. It 
is the truth in the case, and, therefore, we fully accept 
it. We shall suffer no detriment, but find an advan- 
tage, in the maintenance of a universal atonement. But 
Calvinistic divines, while holding a limited atonement, 
are most pronounced upon its intrinsic sufficiency for 
all. And they warmly repel all accusation of a con- 
trary view, and all idea that a limitation of sufficiency 
can have any logical sequence to their scheme. No 
Arminian can be more explicit or emphatic in the dec- 
laration of this sufficiency. The question of their con- 
sistency is another question, but one that does not 
properly arise here. But they are consistent and right 
in maintaining that the extent of the atonement is de- 
termined by its divine destination. While intrinsically 
sufficient for all, it is really for only a part, because 
God so intended it. Such is their ground. 

We might verify these positions by numerous quota- 
tions from the highest Calvinistic authorities. Their 
truth, however, is so familiar to careful students of this 
subject, and so out of all question, as to be in little need 
of proof. A few quotations may be given rather in the 
way of example or illustration. 

" The obedience and sufferings of Christ, considered 
in themselves, are, on account of the infinite dignity of 
his person, of that value as to have been sufficient for 



Determining Law. 307 

redeeming, not only all and every man in i articular, but 
many myriads besides, had it so pleased God and Christ 
that he should have undertaken and satisfied for them." ' 

On the question respecting the extent of the atone- 
ment: "It does not respect the value and sufficiency 
of the death of Christ, whether as to its intrinsic worth 
it might be sufficient for the redemption of all men. It 
is confessed by all, that since its value is infinite, it 
would have been sufficient for the redemption of the 
entire human family had it appeared good to God to 
extend it to the whole world. . . . The question which 
we discuss concerns the purpose of the Father in send- 
ing the Son, and the intention of the Son in dying." 2 

" That the value of our Lord's satisfaction is, in 
itself, considered infinite; sufficient, if applied, to save 
the whole of Adam's fallen race; and that, had it been 
God's intention to save all mankind, our Saviour's obe- 
dience and sufferings would have been amply meri- 
torious, and no addition to the depth of his humilia- 
tion, or to the purity of his life, or to the intensity of 
his agonies, would have been required by divine jus- 
tice : all this we fully believe." 3 

" The two sides of this question do not imply any 
difference of opinion with regard to the sufficiency of 
the death of Christ, or with regard to the number and 
character of those who shall eventually be saved. . . . 
But they differ as to the destination of the death of 

1 "Witsius: "On the Covenants," vol. i, p. 225. 
1 Turrettin: "Atonement of Christ," p. 123. 
• Dr. Janeway : " The Atonement." Presbyterian Tracts, vol i, 
p. 16. 



308 Extent of the Atonement. 

Christ; whether in the purpose of the Father and the 
will of the Son it respected all mankind, or only those 
persons to whom the benefit of it is at length to be 
applied." ' 

"All Calvin ists agree in maintaining earnestly that 
Christ's obedience and sufferings were of infinite In- 
trinsic value in the eye of the law, and that there was 
no need for him to obey or suffer an iota more nor a 
moment longer in order to secure, if God so willed, 
the salvation of every man, woman, and child that ever 
lived." a 

It is needless to add to these authorities by further 
quotation. We add a few by reference. 3 

Whether such a view has scientific consistency is a 
question which concerns not us, but those who maintain 
it. Dr. Schaff has real ground for saying, as he art- 
lessly does in the reference just given : " Full logical 
consistency would require us to measure the value of 
Christ's atonement by the extent of its actual benefit 
or availability, and either to expand or to contract it 
according to the number of the elect." If the atone- 
ment is by penal substitution, Avhy did Christ suffer a 
far deeper punishment than strict justice required as a 
full equivalent for the penal dues of the elect ? We 
know that the excess of merit is ascribed to the infinite 

1 Dr. Hill : " Lectures in Divinity," pp. 505, 506. 

1 Dr. A. A. Hodge: "The Atonement," p. 356. 

•Owen: "Works," (Goold's,) vol. x, p. 297; Schaff: "Creeds of 
Christondom," vol. i, pp. 520, 521; Symington: " Atonement and In- 
tercession," p. 185; Smeaton: "Apostles' Doctrine of Atonement, 1 ' 
p. 538; Hodge: "Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 544; Cunning- 
ham: "Historical Theology," vol. ii, p. 332. 



Determining Law. 309 

rank of Christ. But, on this doctrine, his penal s offer- 
ing is a necessary element of atonement : and it is still 
true that he suffered a deeper punishment than justice 
required. Was this just ? Would God so punish him 
when a far less measure would be all that justice re- 
quired ? The Rectoral atonement has a place for the 
utmost vicarious suffering of Christ : but the Satisfac 
tion atonement has no place for any excess of substitu- 
tional punishment. There is an excess without any 
claim or ground in justice, or any end in grace. Pun- 
ishment, without an adequate ground in justice, is itself 
an injustice. This is equally true in the case of a sub- 
stitute in penalty as in that of the actual offender; and 
equally true of all excess of punishment above the re- 
quirement of justice, as of punishment without any 
ground in justice. And what a waste of atoning worth ! 
All the excess of unapplied grace — enough for all the 
finally lost and infinitely more — goes for nothing. And 
those who so cry out against a universal atonement as 
implying that Christ suffered and died for many in vain, 
are thoroughly estopped by the inevitable sequences 
of their own doctrine. Yet Satisfactionists will not 
surrender this infinite sufficiency. In maintaining a 
limited atonement they have the profoundest need for 
it. They could not presume to vindicate the universal 
overture of atoning grace upon an atonement confessed 
to be sufficient for only a part. 

It is surely clear enough from the quotations and 
references given, that Calvinism holds the divine des- 
tination of the atonement to be determinative of its 
extent. We fully accept this position, Calvinism is 



310 Extent of the Atonement. 

right, not in the limitation of the atonement, but in the 
determining law of its extent. 

3. The True Inquiry. — If the son of a king should 
interpose in atonement for rebellious subjects, any lim- 
itation must be imposed either by the will and purpose 
of the sovereign atoned, or by the will and purpose of 
the atoning son. No other has any power in the 
case. And if we knew the pleasure of each we could 
determine therefrom the extent of the reconciliation 
for which provision is made. The atonement is made 
between the Father and the Son. If limited, either the 
Father would not accept, or the Son would not make, 
an atonement for all. There is no other law of limita- 
tion. The true inquiry, therefore, respects the will of 
the Father and the Son, or what was the pleasure of 
each respecting the extent of the atonement. 

In this we are still in full accord with the Calvinistic 
position. This also is clear from the quotations and 
references previously given. To these many others 
might be added. " The pivot on which the controversy 
— respecting the extent of the atonement — turns is, 
what was the purpose of the Father in sending his 
Son to die, and the object which Christ had in view in 
dying; not what is the value and efficacy of his death." ' 
" But the question does truly and only relate to the de- 
sign of the Father and of the Son in respect to the per- 
sons for whose benefit the atonement was made; that 
ls, to whom, in the making of it, they intended it should 
be applied." a 

1 Turrettin: " The Atonement of Christ," p. 124. 
* Dr. A. A. Hodge : " The Atonement," p. 359. 



Plejlsure of the Fathbb. 811 

II. 

Pleasure of the Father. 

On such a question it is proper to conclude the pleas* 
ure of the Father from his own revealed character. 
There are intimately related facts of decisive testimo- 
ny; and, also, divine utterances authoritative in the 
case. 

1. Question of his Sovereignty. — No plea of the di- 
vine sovereignty can bar the inquiry into the divine 
pleasure respecting the extent of the atonement. In 
any case, the question is not so much what God might 
have done as what he was disposed to do and really has 
done. We raise no question respecting a true divine 
sovereignty, but discard a purely arbitrary one as ut- 
terly inconsistent with the character of God and the 
great facts of his providence. Even an absolute arbi- 
trary sovereignty might as well conclude for a general 
as for a limited atonement. But God does not rule in 
such a sovereignty. All rewards of men according to 
moral character are to the contrary. So are the re- 
vealed decisions of the final judgment. And so is the 
atonement itself. An absolute arbitrary sovereignty 
would need no atonement in order to forgiveness, or in 
determining the happy destinies of men. Such an ad 
ministration would be far less inconsistent with the di- 
vine character than the unconditional reprobation, or 
equally dooming pretention, of the great part of man- 
kind. And if there be a few facts or utterances which 
might be construed in favor of an arbitrary sovereign- 
ty, they must yield to the great facts, with the atone- 



SI 2 Extent of the Atonement. 

ment itself, which prove the contrary. It is written, 
and often applied in this connection: " Even so, Father; 
for so it seemed good in thy sight." } But can the 
forced application of such a text conclude this ques- 
tion ? And did it seem good in the sight of the heav- 
enly Father to limit an atonement sufficient for all to 
the benefit of only a part ? Good how, or for what ? 
Good as the expression of a sovereignty which his 
providence and the atonement itself disclaim? Good 
as a revelation of justice or grace? Good as a salutary 
lesson of moral government? It could have no such 
reason, because an arbitrary sovereignty can have no 
other reason for its acts than its own arbitrariness. 

2. In one Relation to All. — God is the Creator and 
common Father of all men. 2 There is, therefore, no 
difference of divine relationship which could be a rea- 
son for limitation in the atonement. 

This point will carry us further. The atonement 
originated in the divine compassion, and in its provis- 
ions and purposes answers to the yearnings of that 
compassion. One reason of this compassion was in the 
divine Fatherhood. God so loved us as wretched and 
perishing, but especially because we were his wretched 
and perishing children. Hence the very reason of his 
redeeming love was common in all. It could not, there- 
fore- have been the pleasure of God to destinate the 
atonement to the favor of only a part, when his love, in 
which it originated, equally embraced all. And this 
universal divine love witnesses to a universal atone- 
ment. 
1 Matt. 11:26. 'Num. 16: 22; 27: 16: Acts 17: 28; Heb. 12: 9. 



Pleasure op the Fatheb. 313 

3. A Common State of Evil. — As all men appeared 
in the vision of the divine prescience, there was no dif- 
ference in their state of evil, certainly none which could 
be a reason for a partial redemption. Their depravity 
had a common source and was a common ruin. And 
however they might be foreseen to differ in actual life, 
Satisfactionists themselves vigorously deny any and 
every thing in them as the reason of the alleged limita- 
tion. Hence there is not any peculiar evil in a part as 
the reason of a partial redemption. 

This point, also, will carry us further. Again, the 
atonement originated in the divine compassion. God 
so loved us as to provide a ransom for our souls. This 
could be no other than a love of compassion, because 
the objects of it are sinners and enemies. 1 Why this 
pitying love ? Its subjective form in God has an ob- 
jective reason in us. That reason is, in the miseries of 
our moral ruin. And could this pitying love impose 
upon itself an arbitrary limitation when the very rea- 
son of it existed alike in all? And could it be the 
pleasure of the Father to limit the atonement to a part 
when his compassion, in which it originated, equally 
embraced all? 

4. Voice of the Divine Perfections. — The atonement 
has a most intimate relation to the divine perfections. 
Hence they have testimony to give respecting the di- 
vine pleasure as to its extent. 

Justice. — Divine justice has no unsatisfiable claim. 
And the redeeming work of Christ, if so intended, is 
sufficient for its full contentment in behalf of all who 
'Kom. 5: 8-10; Eph. 2: 4, 5. 



314 Extent of the Atonement. 

accept its grace. So the most rigid partial ism will af 
firm. Forgiveness on the ground of such an atonement 
tarnishes no glory of justice, nor sacrifices any right or 
interest of moral government. Hence all reason for 
limitation in divine justice is excluded. 

Holiness. — The divine holiness has no reason for lim- 
itation. If the atonement is intrinsically efficacious in 
the sanctification of all the objects of its favor, then 
the broader its extent the greater the interest of holi- 
ness secured. Indeed, such higher realization of holi- 
ness must have been a great reason for the divine pref- 
erence of a universal redemption. 

Wisdom. — As the atonement is a sufficient ground 
of forgiveness, and, in the case of every sinner saved, 
a higher revelation of the divine perfections than could 
be realized in his merited penal doom, so the broader 
the atonement the greater the good attained. There 
would also be the greater service to the ends of moral 
government. Hence, on either theory of atonement, 
the broader its destination the broader is its helpful 
grace, and the more salutary its moral lessons. Can it, 
therefore, be consistent with the divine wisdom to pre- 
fer the less good when, through the same atonement, 
the infinitely greater might be procured ? 

Goodness. — Beyond these favoring facts, "he extent 
of the atonement is a question of the divine goodness 
What is the answer of that goodness? It is really 
voiced in the sublime words, " God is love ! " A God 
of love must prefer the happiness of all. And as in 
very truth — as according to all the deeper principles 
of Calvinism — there was no hinderance in the case, his 



Pleasure of the Son. Sib 

good pleasure must have been for a universal atone- 
ment. 

God has spoken to this point so directly, and in sueh 
utterances, as to put the fact of his good pleasure for a 
universal atonement out of all question. 1 Is it true, as 
he affirms under most solemn self -ad juration, that he 
has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he 
turn from his way and live ? Is it true that he so loved 
the world that he gave his only begotten Son for its 
redemption ? Is it true that he will have all men to be 
saved ? Is it true that he is longsuffering to us-ward, 
not willing that any should perish ? Can it be, then, 
that in the absence of all hinderance, and with the 
presence of an infinitely greater good, he preferred a 
limited atonement, and sovereignly destinated one in- 
trinsically sufficient for all to the favor of only a part ? 
It cannot be. And the Father placed no narrower limit 
to the grace of redemption than the uttermost circle of 
humanity 

III. 
Pleasure of the Son. 

1. Application of Preceding Facts. — All the facts 
and principles respecting the pleasure of the Father 
have full application in the case of the Son. They are 
of one mind, and the same objects of redeeming love 
are before them. There is equally with the Son an 
absence of all reason for a preference of limitation in 
the atonement, and the presence of the same reasons 
for his pleasure in its universality. 

1 Ezek. 33- 11 ; John 3: 16; 1 Tim. 5?: 4; 2 Peter 3 : 9. 



316 Extent of the Atonement. 

2. Atoning Work the Same. — In an atonement by 
identical or equal penalty, the greater sacrifice required 
by the greater extent might have been a reason with 
the Son for limitation. But the atonement is not such. 
And no lower step of abasement nor deeper anguish 
was required to embrace all within the sufficiency of 
its redemptive grace. The vicarious sufferings of Christ 
as actually endured are all sufficient for a universal 
atonement. 

We are here in full accord with the highest authori- 
ties on the doctrine of Satisfaction. This will appear 
on a recurrence to citations and references previously 
given. 1 We may add one here. "All that Christ did 
and suffered would have been necessary had only one 
human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing 
different, and nothing more, would have been required 
had every child of Adam been saved through his 
blood." 2 While this view is utterly inconsistent with 
the principles of Satisfactionists, it shows equally well 
their position on the question in hand. And they ever 
allege this sufficiency as the chief ground on which 
they attempt a defense of the divine sincerity in a uni- 
versal overture of redemptive grace. 

If, therefore, the sufferings of Christ as actually en- 
dured are sufficient for the salvation of all men, there 
could have been no reason or motive from the amount 
of suffering necessary to give him preference for a lim- 
ited atonement. 

3. A Question of his Love. — The question, then, 

1 Chap, xii, I, 3. 

* Dr. Hodge- "Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 545. 



Scripture Testimony. 317 

respecting the pleasure of the Son has its answer from 
his love. That answer must be decisive. Nor is it in 
any doubt. The Son of God, who, in pitying love to 
sinners parted with his glory and humbled himself to 
the deepest suffering and shame, was not wanting m 
redeeming love to all men. And it was his good pleas- 
ure that his atonement should be for all. His cross so 
affirms, 

IV. 

Scripture Testimony. 

Under this heading we might discuss at length the 
Scripture texts usually brought in proof respectively 
of limitation and universality in the atonement. This, 
however, is not our purpose; and a brief treatment will 
answer for our plan. 

A full treatment of the present question would also 
require a thorough discussion of certain assumptions 
alleged in proof of a limited atonement. We may 
name the following: A decree of sovereign election to 
salvation. The elect are given to the Son for the pur- 
pose of redemption. His intercession and the gift of 
the Holy Spirit are limited to them. Christ loved his 
own people with a special love, and, therefore, re- 
deemed them only. He purchased faith and repentance 
for them only. The efficacious application of grace, 
necessary to salvation, is limited to them. 1 

Such assumptions can witness for a limited atone- 
ment only on the ground of their own truth. There 
must be a sovereign decree of election, whereby a part 

^urrettin: " The Atonement of Christ," pp. 135-139. 

21 



318 Extent of the Atonement. 

are unconditionally destined to eternal liie. Moner- 
gism — the invincible saving of the redeemed by the sole 
agency of the Holy Spirit, and against all possible re- 
sistance — must be true. An unconditional final perse- 
verance must be true. The atonement must, from its 
own intrinsic nature, save all, or require the saving oi 
all for whom it is made. Otherwise, there is no ground 
for the alleged parallel of extent between it and the 
other facts of the system. 

But it is not our purpose to discuss these questions. 
This is not necessary to the argument which we are 
conducting. And we are entirely satisfied with the 
result of their previous discussion. Since the time of 
Arminius and the Synod of Dort, with its celebrated 
" Five Points," they have held a prominent place in 
the polemics of theology. If, as we believe, Arminian- 
ism has the truth on these questions so vitally concern- 
ing the extent of the atonement, it is not limited to a 
part; and, therefore, not of the nature maintained by 
Calvinism proper. And so far as these tenets of the 
system bear on the extent of the atonement, we are 
content to rest the question on the results of their pre- 
vious discussion. 1 

1. Proof-texts for Limitation, — The texts of Scripture 

'This discussion is open to all who have a mind to investigate 
it. The literature is immense. Among the leading names are, on the 
one side, Calvin, Turrettin, Witsius, Owen, Scott, Toplady, Edwards, 
Hodge; on the other, Arminius, Episcopius, Goodwin, ("Redemption 
Redeemed,") Whitby, ("On the Five Points,") Wesley, Fletcher, 
("Checks to Antinomianism,") Watson, Bishop Tomline, (" The Refu- 
tation of Calvinism,") Dr. Fisk, ("The Calvinistic Controversy,") 
Bishop Foster, (" Objections to Calvinism,") on the philosophic phases 
of the issxie, Dr. Bledsoe, Dr. Whedon. 



Scripture Testimony. 319 

more directly applied in proof of a limited atonement 
are not numerous. Nor will they require a critical or 
elaborate exegesis to show either their affirmative in- 
conclusiveness, or their utter impotence against the 
many which so explicitly assert its universality. We 
shall give the texts for limitation by reference and 
without full citation. And for the sake of a manifest 
fairness we will give them from a master in Calvinism, 
with his own italicising, and connecting and explan- 
atory words. 

" The mission and death of Christ are restricted to a 
limited number — to his people, his sheep, his friends, his 
Church, his body ; and nowhere extended to all men 
severally and collectively. Thus Christ ' is called 
Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sins.' 1 
He is called the Saviour of his body ; 2 ' the good shep- 
herd who lays down his life for the sheep,'' 8 and ( for 
his friends.' 4 He is said ' to die — that he might gath- 
er in one the children of God that were scattered 
abroad.' 6 It is said that Christ 'hath purchased the 
Church with his own blood.' 6 If Christ died for every 
one of Adam's posterity, why should the Scriptures 
so often restrict the object of his death to a few?" 7 

This should be noted first, that in all the texts given 
there is not one word which limits the atonement to 
the subjects named. And with infinitely more reason 
and force may we ask, If the atonement is only for a 
few, why do the Scriptures so often assert that it is for 

1 Matt. 1:21. »Eph. 5:23. 'John 10: 15. 

4 John 16 . 13. 5 John 11 : 52. a Acts 20 : 28 ; Eph. 5 : 25, 2C. 

T Turrettin: "The Atonement of Christ," pp. 125, 126. 



320 Extent of the Atonement. 

all ? If, as assumed, it is in its own nature necessarily 
saving, and the actual saving is included in it, then, of 
course, there is a limitation. But it is not such. Suf- 
ficient proof to the contrary has already been given. 
Nothing respecting the atonement is more certain than 
the real conditionally of its saving grace. Hence, it 
A a mere assumption that the atonement is necessarily 
saving, and, therefore, that the actual saving is the ex- 
tent of it. And the elimination of this assumption in- 
validates the sura of the author's argument. Christ did 
die for the subjects named in these texts; but as they 
are without a restricting word, they are without proof 
of a limited atonement. 

Stress is laid upon the terms, his people, his sheep, 
his friends, his Church, his body, as though they desig- 
nated a distinct and limited class for which Christ died. 
They are a distinct and limited class, but as actually 
saved, not simply as redeemed, and especially not be- 
fore their redemption. There is no such a class ex- 
cept as the fruit of atonement. Hence, there could 
be no such a restricted class for which Christ died. 
The atonement, as the only ground of their peculiar re- 
lation to Christ, must precede that relation, and be 
made for them as lost sinners, ungodly, and enemies. 1 
They can enter into such a peculiar relation to Christ 
only through the grace of an atonement previously 
made for them. That same atonement, previously made 
for them as sinners, was so made for all men. 

If these texts prove a limited atonement, they must 
be inconsistent with its universality ; or, if consistent 
J Roa 5: 6-10; Eph. 2: 11-22. 



Scripture Testimony. 321 

with this, they do not prove a limited one. There is 
not the least difficulty in this consistency. It is true, 
indeed, that Christ died for all the actual sharers in the 
saving grace of atonement. And there are special rea- 
sons for emphasizing the fact. Thus Christ impresses 
upon their mind the greatness of his love to them, and 
the greatness of the benefits received through the grace 
of his redemption, and so enforces his own claim upon 
their love. But no law of interpretation either requires 
or implies the assumed restriction in such a use of terms. 
And the scheme of universality can use them just as 
freely and consistently as the most rigid partialism. 

2. Proof-texts for Universality. — There is one class 
with the universal terms all and every. " For there is 
one God, and one mediator between God and men, the 
man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, 
to be testified in due time." ! Yes, to be testified as a 
truth, and not to be witnessed against. And the text 
gives its own testimony. We know not a formula for 
the better expression of a universal atonement. " For 
therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because 
we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of 
all men, specially of those that believe." 2 If God is 
not in some similarity of sense the Saviour of all men, 
as he is specially the Saviour of believers, there is here 
a comparison without any basis in analogy. If many 
are foreordained to eternal destruction, or merely under 
the pretention of a limited atonement equally dooming 
them to perdition, God is not in any sense the Saviour 
of all men. But with a universal atonement, whereby 

1 1 Tim. 2: 5, 6. 2 1 Tim. 4: 10. 

21 



322 Extent of the Atonement. 

the salvation of all is possible, as that of believers is 
actual, there is a clear sense in which he is the Saviour 
of all men, and a sense consistent with the implied 
analogy of the text. 

" But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than 
the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with 
glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should 
taste death for every man." ' Every man is every 
man. The identity of the two terms of a proposition 
does not exclude their equivalence. Rather, we have 
the simple truth that a fact is what it is. And no skill 
in exegesis can reduce this text to the measure of a 
limited atonement. 

There is another class which affirms the redemption 
of the world, and in the truest sense of a universal 
atonement. 2 

The weakness of all attempts to reduce these texts to 
the sense of a limited atonement really concedes their 
irreducible universality. The attempt requires an iden- 
tification of the icorld with the elect. They must have 
one sense, in that both must mean the same persons. 
These texts would thus be classed in sense with the 
proof -texts of limitation, previously considered. World 
would be one in meaning with the people, sheep, friends, 
Church, body of Christ. Will it bear such a sense? 
The exegete has not yet arisen who can answer affirm- 
atively, and make good his answer. 

3. In Extent of the Evil of Sin. — More than once is 
the co-extension of sin and atonement set forth. 

1 Heb. 2 : 9. 

2 John 1:29; 3:16,17; 12: 47; 2 Cor. 5: 18, 19; 1 John 2: 1,2; 4: 14. 



Scripture Testimony. 323 

" Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation; even so by the right- 
eousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto 
justification of life." * The " all men " in relation to 
Adam are all in the fullest sense. No real Calvinist 
will question it. But the " all men " in relation to the 
redemption in Christ, must be all in the same sense of 
universality. Indeed, the "all men" in the two rela- 
tions to Adam and Christ are the very same ; and only 
a forced interpretation could give less extension to the 
term in the latter case than in the former. The text 
clearly gives us a universal atonement. 

"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we 
thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; 
and that he died for all, that they which live should 
not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which 
died for them, and rose again." 2 In the full sense of 
Scripture, Christ died for men as in a state of sin and 
death, and only for such. But he died for all; there- 
fore all were dead. Thus, in a somewhat syllogistic 
statement the text gives the universality of the aton- 
ing death of Christ as the major premise. It is thus 
placed as a truth above question. 

For " all dead," some give the rendering " all died" — 
died in and with Christ. 3 Thereon an attempt is made 
to limit the atonement to the elect. 4 We will not con- 
tend about the new rendering, but must dispute the 
limiting sense. Candlish here finds the Headship of 

1 Rom. 5 : 18. 2 2 Cor. 5 : 14, 15. 

3 Dr. Candlish : " The Atonement," p. 62 ; Alford, in loco. 

4 So Candlish, not Alford. 



324 ExTEXT OF THE ATONEMENT. 

Christ and the doctrine of imputation of sin to him, 
and of all that he does and suffers to those whom he 
represents, in a sense " that whatever befalls the Head 
must be held to pass, and must actually pass, effica- 
ciously, to all whom he represents." This is the neces- 
sary salvation of all for whom Christ died. Hence, he 
must have died for only a part, or the apostle's argu- 
ment is implicated in Universalism. " Not only is the 
argument thus hopelessly perplexed, but, as in the for- 
mer case, it is found to tell in favor of the notion of 
universal salvation rather than any thing else; making 
actual salvation, through the death and life of Christ, 
co-extensive with death through the sin of Adam." 
We would not deplore such a realization. Nor would 
Dr. Candlish. His trouble is with the logic of the case. 
Actual salvation is limited in fact; therefore, an atone- 
ment necessarily saving must be limited. He is logic- 
ally right. But his trouble comes from his erroneous 
doctrine of Satisfaction. With an atonement in vicari- 
ous suffering sufficient for all, but really conditional in 
the saving result, its universality is in full logical ac- 
cord with a limited actual salvation. There is, there- 
fore, no exigency of interpretation from a necessary 
harmony of fact and doctrine, requiring either the ex- 
clusion of the manifest comparison of sin and atone- 
ment in co-extension, or the reduction of a universal 
term to the meaning of a part. And the text above 
cited, despite all the efforts of a limiting scheme, is 
clear proof of a universal atonement. 

4. The Great Commission. — " And he said unto them, 
Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every 



Sceiptube Testimony. 325 

creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." ' 
This great commission laid its solemn charge upon the 
apostles with all the obligation and authority which the 
Master, now risen and with all power in his hand, could 
impose. So it comes down the ages upon all Churches 
and ministers. And so all true Churches and ministers 
receive it. We thus have certain indisputable facts 
intimately related to the extent of the atonement, and 
decisive of its universality. 

i. The Gospel for All. — The very terms of the great 
commission are decisive of this, that the Gospel is for 
all. And its universal preaching should be, and in the 
very nature of it must be, the free offer of saving grace 
in Christ to all. The most rigid Limitationists fully 
admit this. 2 Indeed, they have no alternative. Nor 
need we insist upon what no one questions. 

ii. Salvation the Privilege of All. — The Gospel is the 
overture of salvation. All to whom it is preached may 
accept it and be saved. To this end is it preached. 
And the same privilege would ever accompany the 
Gospel, were it fully preached in all the world. Nor 
need we here contend for what is fully conceded. 3 

Hi. Saving Faith the Duty of All. — It is the duty of 
all to whom the Gospel comes to accept it in faith, and 
a faith unto salvation. The same would be true, were 
it in the fullest sense preached to all. This obligation 
is in the very terms of the great commission. Hence, 

1 Mark 16 : 15, 16. 

9 Dr. Symington : " Atonement and Intercession," pp. 209, 210. 

8 Dr. Hodge : " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 558. 



326 Extent of the Atonement. 

eternal destinies are determined according as the Gospel 
is received or rejected. " He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." Only on an obligation to a true, saving faith 
in Christ could our action in the case have such conse- 
quence. Other texts equally express or imply the same 
duty of a saving faith. 1 We shall have everlasting life 
or perish, according as we believe or believe not ; are in 
condemnation or free from it, according to the same ac- 
tion ; are heirs of life eternal or under the abiding wrath 
of God, as we believe on the Son or do not believe. 

Limitationists concede and maintain this duty of 
faith. 3 Hence, we need not further support what is 
not disputed. Indeed, special account is made of this 
obligation for the vindication of divine justice in the 
final doom of unbelievers. 

The duty of a saving faith in Christ implies an ac- 
tual grace of salvation in him. The required faith 
must terminate in his redeeming death. An attainable 
grace of salvation absolutely conditions the obligation 
of such a faith. But, on a limited atonement, the Gos- 
pel comes to many for whom there is really no such 
grace. Nor will the assertion of an intrinsic sufficiency 
for all void this consequence. Then can this faith be 
the duty of any one for whom there is no saving grace ? 
How can it be? It has no objective truth, and would 
be a trust in what does not exist. Nor could the sal- 

1 John 3: 14-16, 18, 36. 

2 " Princeton Essays : " First Series, p. 287 ; Prof. Crawford : " The 
Scripture Doctrine of the Atonement," p. 202 ; Dr. Candlish : " The 
Atonement/' pp. 172, 260. 






Sceipture Testimony. 327 

vation possibly accrue upon the faith. And has Christ 
enjoined the offer of an impossible blessing ? Has he 
commanded faith in what is not real ? Has he made 
the unbelief of what is not true a sin of exceeding de- 
merit and damnableness ? No, he has not done any of 
these things. We can most positively so deny; but 
only on the ground of a real atonement for all. 

On a limited atonement, the duty of this faith must 
be most difficult — too difficult, indeed, to be so re- 
sponsible. The faith implies, not only an intrinsically 
sufficient, but an actually sufficient, atonement for any 
one exercising it. Faith in this fact of an actual atone- 
ment must precede, as its necessary condition, the faith 
of a saving trust in Christ. This is denied. 1 Both au- 
thors given in the reference properly distinguish the 
mental acts of one in believing that Christ died for him, 
and in believing in him for his salvation ; but, strange 
enough, both deny a necessary precedence to the for- 
mer act of faith, and, indeed, give precedence to the 
latter. We know not the mental philosophy by which 
they place these facts in this order. It must originate 
in the exigency of their soteriology rather than in the 
careful study and scientific use of the facts of psychol- 
ogy. But no man ever did or can believe in Christ 
unto salvation without first believing that he died for 
him. This is the necessary order of the mental facts. 
And it is utterly nugatory to plead that no one is com- 
manded first to believe that Christ died for him. This 
is not claimed. And the necessity arises, not from the 

1 Turrettin : "Atonement of Christ," p. 178 ; Prof. Smeaton : " The 
Doctrine of the Atonement," p. 322. 



328 Extent of the Atonement. 

immediate command of such a preceding faith, but 
from inevitable laws of the mind, under the obligation 
of a divinely-enjoined saving faith in Christ. Such is 
the necessary order of kindred facts as given by St. 
Paul : " For he that cometh to God must believe that 
he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently 
seek him." ' Here faith in God, as existing and good, 
must precede all successful coming to him in an earnest 
seeking and a true faith of trust for his blessing. There 
is the same necessary order of facts respecting our 
faith in Christ: first, in believing that he died for us; 
then, in a sure trust of faith in him for his salvation. 

It is here that, on a limited atonement, the exceed- 
ing difficulty of the divinely-required faith arises. If 
Christ died for only a part, and, as many hold, for only 
the far smaller part of adults, no man has, nor can 
have, previous to his conversion, satisfactory evidence 
that there is an atonement for him. And, according 
to the doctrine of chance as applicable in the case, the 
presumption is strongly against it. How, then, can he 
savingly trust in Christ? It is nothing to the point to 
answer, that he does not know that he is left without 
redemption ; for what he needs to be assured of, as the 
necessary condition of a saving faith in Christ, is, that 
he did provide for him. 

iv. The Atonement for All. — We group the facts 
given us under the great commission. The Gospel is 
for all, and in the free overture of saving grace in 
Christ. Salvation is the privilege of all to whom the 
gracious overture is made. A saving faith in the re- 
1 Heb. 11: 6. 






Scripture Testimony. 329 

demption of Christ is the duty of all who have the Gos- 
pel. These are not mere inferences, but facts clearly- 
given in the Scriptures, and fully conceded by the ad- 
vocates of a limited atonement. By all the force of 
their logic they witness to the fact of a real atonement 
for all. They have no other ground. The overture of 
saving grace has no other; nor the privilege of salva- 
tion; nor the duty of a saving faith in Christ; nor the 
guilt and damnableness of unbelief. Therefore, these 
facts imperatively require a universal atonement, and, 
so requiring, affirm its truth. 

V. 

Fallacies of Limitation. 

The law of scientific accordance in vitally related 
truths and facts makes Yerj serious trouble for the 
scheme of limited atonement. Certain very discordant 
but admitted facts require reconciliation with the lim- 
itation, or rather, with the divine sincerity, as con- 
cerned in them. We shall show that the attempted 
reconciliation proceeds with fallacies, and, therefore, 
ends in fallacy. 

1. Facts Admitted. — These facts were given with 
the great commission in the previous section, and need 
only to be recalled. The Gospel is for all. Salvation is 
the privilege of all under the Gospel. A saving faith 
in Christ is the duty of all who hear the Gospel. Such 
are the facts. They have the authority of Scripture. 
Limitationists fully admit them, as manifest in refer- 
ences previously given. Such references might be in- 
creased to a great number. No modern Calvinistic 



330 Extent of the Atonement. 

author of any influence will question them. The com- 
mon attempt to reconcile them with the divine sincerity- 
is in their full admission. 

2. I/iconsiste?it with the Divine Sincerity. — There is 
here no issue either on the admitted facts or on the 
divine sincerity: the question respects the consistency 
of the facts with that sincerity, on the ground of a 
limited atonement. We assert their inconsistency, and 
accuse their attempted reconciliation of egregious fal- 
lacy. On a limited atonement, the Gospel cannot be 
sincerely preached to all. Nor can salvation be the 
privilege of all. Nor can a saving faith in Christ be the 
duty of all, nor of any for whom his death was not di- 
vinely destinated as an atonement. Such a divine over- 
ture of grace and requirement of faith would be to the 
unredeemed a mockery and a cruelty. These facts 
go into the present issue. There are no other facts or 
vindicatory pleas which can void the force of their 
logic. They do not implicate the divine sincerity, but 
conclude the universality of the atonement as the only 
ground of their consistency with that sincerity. 

3. Sufficiency of Atonement in Vindication. — The 
ground on which Limitationists specially attempt a 
vindication of the divine sincerity in a universal over- 
ture of saving grace, with the other admitted facts, is 
an alleged sufficiency of the atonement for all. 1 The 
fact is so familiar that there is but slight reason for 
any reference. We have previously shown how fully 
the advocates of a limited atonement maintain its in- 

1 " Princeton Essays : " First Series, p. 291 ; Dr. Symington: "Atone- 
ment and Intercession," pp. 186, 213. 



Fallacies of Limitation. 331 

trinsic sufficiency, in just what Christ did and suffered, 
for the salvation of all men. 1 Thus they have their 
position of defense in the present issue. Whether, on 
their doctrine of atonement, there is a real and avail- 
able sufficiency, such as will answer for the required 
vindication, we shall directly consider. For the pres- 
ent it may suffice to note the ground on which the 
vindication is attempted. 

4. True Sense of Sufficiency. — We must distinguish 
between a mere intrinsic and an actual sufficiency. 
There is reason for the distinction. Satisfactionists 
fully recognize it, especially in application to the re- 
demptive work of Christ. An intrinsic sufficiency is 
from what a thing is in its own capability. An actual 
sufficiency is from its appropriation. A life-boat may 
have ample capacity for the rescue of twenty ship- 
wrecked mariners; but if appropriated, and limited by 
the appropriation, to the rescue of only ten, the actual 
and available sufficiency is only so much. One man 
has money enough for the liberation of twenty pris- 
oners for debt; but whether it shall be available, and 
so actually sufficient, depends upon his use or appro- 
priation of it. Even if he should appropriate the 
whole sum, but at the same time destinate it to the 
benefit of a fixed number — ten of the twenty — then, 
while intrinsically sufficient for the liberation of all, 
it would be actually sufficient and available for only 
the designated ten. The atonement of Satisfaction 
must yield to such a consequence. The redemptive 
mediation of Christ, in just what he did and suffered, 
1 Chap, xii, I, 1, 2. 



332 Extent of the Atonement. 

has intrinsic sufficiency for the salvation of all men, 
but there is a limiting divine destination. Such are 
the facts as given by Satisfactionists themselves. The 
sufficiency for all is only potential, not actual from a 
universal destination. But for the divine vindication 
in a universal overture of saving grace in Christ, and 
in holding all to so responsible a duty of faith in him, 
a mere intrinsic sufficiency will not answer. Only an 
actual and available sufficiency will so answer. 

5. Sufficiency only with Destination. — The sufferings 
of Christ have no atoning value except as they were 
vicariously endured for sinners with the purpose of an 
atonement. His incarnation and death are conceivable 
and possible entirely apart from the purposes of re- 
demption. In that case they would have no atoning 
element. All atonement is absolutely conditioned by 
his so suffering for sinners. 

The extent of the atonement is thus determined by 
its divine destination. This agrees with the above 
principle. And, as we have seen, it is a primary prin- 
ciple in the doctrine of Satisfaction. Hence, as atone- 
ment is necessarily conditioned on the divine appoint- 
ment and acceptance of the sufferings of Christ as a 
substitute in behalf of sinners, so the divine destina- 
tion absolutely fixes the limit of its extent. There is 
no atonement beyond. As the sufferings of Christ are 
an atonement for sin only with their divine destination 
to that end, so they have no atoning value for any one 
beyond those for whom they were redemptively des- 
tined. And the plea of a sufficient atonement for all, 
while its limited destination is firmly maintained, is 



Fallacies of Limitation. 333 

the sheerest fallacy. It is as utterly insufficient for all 
for whom it was not divinely destinated as though no 
atonement had been made for any. Hence the alleged 
ground on which it is attempted to vindicate the divine 
sincerity in the universal overture of saving grace, and 
the imperative requirement of saving faith in Christ, 
is no ground at all. 

6. Limited in Satisfaction Scheme. — If we test the 
assumption of a universal sufficiency in the atonement 
by the principles of the Satisfaction theory, we shall 
further see how utterly groundless the pretension is. 
This is an entirely fair method. For unless there be 
a sufficiency according to these principles, it is the 
sheerest assumption, and the vindicatory use of it ut- 
terly groundless. And this we maintain, that the Sat- 
isfaction atonement is, from its own principles, of lim- 
ited sufficiency. 

In this theory atonement is by substitutional punish- 
ment in satisfaction of justice. Sin must be punished 
according to its desert. Any omission would be an in- 
justice in God. So the theory maintains, as we have 
previously shown. There is no salvation for any sin- 
ner except through a substitute in penalty. There is 
no atonement for any one except in penal substitution. 
But by divine covenant and destination Christ suffered 
the punishment of sin for only an elect part, not for 
all. So the theory asserts. Such an atonement is as ut- 
terly insufficient for any and all for whose sins penal sat- 
isfaction is not rendered to justice, as though no atone- 
ment were made, or there were no Christ to make one. 

From its own principles the atonement of Satisfac- 
22 



334 Extent of the Atonement. 

tion is necessarily efficient just as broadly as it is suffi- 
cient. The necessary elements of its sufficiency must 
give it efficiency in the actual salvation of all for whom 
it is made. If Christ, as accepted substitute, took the 
place of an elect part under both precept and penalty, 
and rendered full satisfaction in respect of both, of 
course they must all be saved. Their repentance and 
faith are the purchase of redemptive grace, and must 
take their place as necessary facts in a process of salva- 
tion monergistically wrought. 

While such is the logic of the principles of Satisfac- 
tion, its advocates fully support the same view. The 
fact is given in previous citations and references. 1 
Many such might be added, though a few will suffice. 
" His atonement may be truly called * a finished work,' 
securing not only a possible salvation, but an actual sal- 
vation." 2 " If the fruits of the death of Christ be to 
be communicated unto us upon a condition, and that 
condition to be among those fruits, and be itself to be 
absolutely communicated upon no condition, then all 
the fruits of the death of Christ are as absolutely pro- 
cured for them for whom he died as if no condition 
had been prescribed; for these things come all to one. 
. . . Faith, which is this condition, is itself procured by 
the death of Christ for them for whoni he died, to be 
freely bestowed on them, without the prescription of 
any such condition as on whose fulfilling the collation 
of it should depend." 3 " But God, in his infinite mercy, 

1 Chap, vii, VI, 2. 

'-' Prof. Crawford: "Scripture Doctrine of the Atonement," p. 200. 
en : "Works," (Goold's,) vol. x,. p. 450. 



Fallacies of Limitation. 335 

having determined to save a multitude which no man 
could number, gave them to his Son as his inheritance, 
provided he would assume their nature and fulfill all 
righteousness in their stead. In the accomplishment of 
this plan Christ did come into the world, and did obey 
and suffer in the place of those thus given to him, and 
for their salvation. This was the definite object of his 
mission, and, therefore, his death had a reference to 
them which it could not possibly have to those whom 
God determined to leave to the just recompense of their 
sins." 1 Respecting the atonement for the elect: "Is 
it any thing short of a real and personal substitution of 
Christ in their room and stead, as their representative 
and surety, fulfilling all their legal obligations, and un- 
dertaking and meeting all their legal liabilities ? Is 
it any thing short of such a substitution as must insure 
that, in consequence of it, they are now, by a legal 
right — in terms of the law which He as their covenant 
head has magnified and made honorable in their behalf 
— free from the imputation of legal blame ; that as one 
with him in his righteousness they are judicially ab- 
solved and acquitted, justified from all their transgres- 
sions, and invested with a valid legal title to eternal 
life and salvation ? " 2 

Such is the atonement of Satisfaction. From its own 
nature it must save all for whom it is made. It has 

1 Dr. Hodge : " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 547. 

2 Dr. Candlish : " The Atonement," pp. 247, 248. For like views 
see also Prof. Smeaton : " The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atone- 
ment," pp. 537-540; Dr. Hill: "Lectures in Divinity," pp. 510, 511; 
Dr. Janeway : " The Atonement ; " " Presbyterian Tracts : " vol. i, 
pp. 16, 17 ; Witsius : " The Covenants," vol. i, p. 206. 



336 Extent of the Atonement. 

ever waged war upon Arminianism for the denial of this 
causal efficiency as being a denial of the true nature of 
atonement. It is such that, were it for all, then all must 
be saved. Hence it is denied that it is for all. A limited 
actual salvation is ever given as the proof of a limited 
atonement. It is the only possible atonement. The 
facts of substitution in Christ necessary to an atone- 
ment must be efficient in the salvation of all whom he 
substitutes. 

Is such an atonement sufficient for all ? It is made, 
as maintained, on a covenant between the Father and 
the Son. By their consenting pleasure it is for a given 
number of elect souls, and no more. We accept the 
divine destination as the determining law of its extent. 
We give full credit to its advocates for asserting its 
intrinsic sufficiency for all. But an intrinsic or poten- 
tial sufficiency is one thing, while an actual and avail- 
able sufficiency is another. Recurring to the citations 
of Limitationists in the assertion of this sufficiency for 
all, we often find a qualified expression after this man- 
ner : The mediation of Christ, in just what he did and 
suffered, is sufficient for the salvation of all men, had 
it pleased the Father and the Son to destinate it for all. 
But this destination is denied. It is the determining 
fact of a limited atonement. Hence, on this doctrine, 
there are many whose place Christ did not take either 
in precept or penalty. The fact concludes the question 
of sufficiency against the Limitationists. They must 
not ignore their own absolutely limiting doctrine, nor 
must they, in the exigency of defense, be allowed to 
call a contingent a sufficiency — a sufficiency that might 



Fallacies of Limitation. 337 

have been, but is not — a real sufficiency. They must 
abide by their own principles. 

How can there be a sufficient atonement for the non- 
elect, when according to the principles and averments 
of this theory there is for them no atonement ? Will 
Limitationists answer ? Did Christ die for them ? 
Did he fulfill for them the righteousness which the 
divine law imperatively requires, and without which 
there is no salvation ? Did he suffer the merited pun- 
ishment of their sins, also held to be absolutely neces- 
sary to their discharge ? A limited atonement has only 
a negative answer. Where, then, is the sufficiency for 
them ? The doctrine must deny its most fundamental 
principles even to pretend to a sufficiency. The atone- 
ment is now, but the work of Christ in making it is in 
preterit time. Its extent was then absolutely deter- 
mined. It is for those for whom it was made, and 
never can be for others. The principles of the doctrine 
so determine it. An immutable divine decree so bounds 
it. 1 And only with egregious fallacy can there be even 
a pretense of sufficiency in the atonement for the non- 
elect. 

Then, on the doctrine of a limited atonement, it is 
impossible to reconcile the free and universal overture 
of saving grace in Christ, and the imperative duty of 
all who hear the Gospel savingly to believe in him, 
with the divine sincerity. There is for many no suf- 
ficient atonement or saving grace. The offered grace 
is not in the offer. The utmost faith is utterly ground- 
less and delusive. Could one non-elect soul, held to 

1 " The Westminster Confession," ch. iii, III-VII. 
22 



338 Extent of the Atonement. 

the duty of a saving trust in Christ under the penalty 
of endless perdition, have a faith equal in strength to 
the combined faith of millions saved, it would be fruit- 
less of forgiveness and salvation to him, as a soul with- 
out the substitution of Christ cannot be forgiven and 
saved. So the doctrine of Satisfaction affirms. 

What is the conclusion ? The real and unquestioned 
facts are still before us. On the one hand are the uni- 
versal overture of saving grace and the responsible 
duty of saving faith; on the other, the divine sincerity 
therein. There is no issue between them. There is no 
question of any such issue. The question is, whether 
the former are consistent with the latter on the ground 
of a limited atonement ? Certainly they are not. Nor 
can the divine sincerity be thereon vindicated. We 
give this discussion of the question in proof. The at- 
tempted reconciliation proceeds with fallacies and ends 
in fallacy. The inevitable conclusion is the universality 
of the atonement. 

1. Only a Seeming Inconsistency. — With seeming 
doubt as to the satisfactoriness of the preceding de- 
fense, it is assumed that, after all, the admitted facts 
may not be inconsistent with the divine sincerity; that 
our inability to reconcile them is not conclusive of an 
absolute contrariety; that to higher intelligences, and 
especially to God, they may appear in full harmony. 
" That we are incapable of reconciling them does not 
prove them to be irreconcilable. God may be capable 
of reconciling them; creatures of a higher intellectual 
and moral rank may see their reconcilableness; or we 
ourselves, when elevated to a brighter sphere of being, 



Fallacies of Limitation. 339 

may yet be fully equal to the difficult problem." 1 But 
so conjectural a solution will not answer for so real a 
difficulty. And there are contrarieties absolutely ir- 
reconcilable. Such is the case here. Our highest rea- 
son must so pronounce. We cannot rationally go be- 
hind it, not even hypothetieally. We may accept in 
faith what is above our reason, but we cannot solve, 
nor even relieve, a difficulty by an assumption con- 
tradictory to our reason. This is the insuperable diffi- 
culty here. God cannot sincerely offer saving grace 
to any soul when the grace is not in the offer. Nor 
can he righteously impose the duty of a saving faith 
in Christ upon any one for whom there is no salvation 
in him. 

8. Mixed State of Elect and Non-elect. — Another vin- 
dication is attempted on the assumption of a necessity 
arising out of the mixed state of elect and non-elect. 
The only alternative to an indiscriminate offer of grace 
and requirement of faith would be an open discrimina- 
tion of the two classes. " The warrant of faith is 
the testimony of God in the Gospel. And, it may be 
asked, could not this testimony have been made only to 
those to whom it was his design to give grace to receive 
it ? We answer : Not without doing away with that 
mixed state of human existence which God has ap- 
pointed for important purposes ; not without making a 
premature disclosure of who are the objects of his 
special favor and who are not, to the entire subversion 
of that moral economy under which it is the good 
pleasure of his will that men should subsist in this 
1 Dr. Symington : " Atonement and Intercession," p. 210. 



340 Extent of the Atonement. 

world ; not without even subverting the very design of 
salvation by faith." ' 

The reasons alleged for secrecy in the elective and 
reprobative purposes of God are without force ; cer- 
tainly without sufficient force for his vindication in a 
graceless offer of saving grace in Christ. The mixed 
state of elect and reprobate would continue as it is. 
The moral economy under which we live would remain. 
It is God's own, and of his appointment. And has he 
so ordered it as to require of him a free overture of 
saving grace to many for whom there is none ? Nor 
would the plan of salvation by faith be subverted. 
Many, without any question of an atonement for them, 
refuse all saving faith in Christ ; while many, equally 
without doubt of an atonement for them, do savingly 
believe in him. With this discrimination there would 
still be a proper sphere of saving faith for the elect ; 
and, on the doctrine of Satisfaction, the faith would be 
under the same determining law as now. 

This disclosure would accord with the facts in the 
case, and be far better than a false show of grace. It 
must be made sometime, and is just the same if made 
now. Nor would the destiny of any soul be affected 
thereby. Destiny is determined by the decree of God, 
not by the disclosure of its elective discriminations. 
Believers and unbelievers would be the very same — 
neither more nor less, nor other in either class, as the 
immutable / decree of election and pretention is im- 
mutable. There is no urgent reason for this indis- 
criminate overture of partial grace ; while no urgency 
1 Dr. Symington : "Atonement and Intercession," p. 212. 



Fallacies of Limitation. 341 

could justify it. Let the atonement be preached, with 
the announcement of its partialism, and that the non- 
elect have no interest in it and no duty respecting 
it, and the result, as determined by an absolute sover- 
eignty working monergistically, will be the very same. 
And a limited atonement still contradicts facts divinely 
given. It must, therefore, be an error. 

9. Secret and Preceptive Divine Will. — As a last re- 
sort, the reconciliation of this overture of grace and 
requirement of faith with the divine sincerity, is at- 
tempted on a distinction between the secret or decre- 
tive and the preceptive will of God. " The purposes 
of God are not the rule of our duty, and whatever God 
may design to do, we are to act in accordance with his 
preceptive will." l "The Gospel call may be regarded 
as expressive of man's duty rather than of the divine 
intention." 2 Is this reasoning ? The characters of 
Dr. Hodge and Dr. Symington will not allow us to 
question its sincerity. But can the precepts and pur- 
poses of God run counter to each other ? Can he 
openly offer a grace, and with the forms of gracious 
invitation and promise, which he secretly intends not 
to give, and by an eternal purpose withholds ? Can 
he openly command the duty of a saving faith upon 
any one for whom there is no saving grace, and whom 
his eternal decree absolutely dooms to the perdition of 
sin ? How could these things be without duplicity ? 
And it is a marvelous supposition that the Gospel, as 
the invitation and command of God, may represent our 

1 " Princeton Essaya : " First Series, p. 285. 

8 Dr. Symington; "Atonement and Intercession," p. 211. 



342 Extent of the Atonement. 

privilege and duty, conveying the one and imposing 
the other, but not his secret will and decree respecting 
us. Yet it is only on such a supposition that this at- 
tempted vindication can have any pertinence whatever. 
Indeed, the attempt proceeds upon the assumption of 
this contrariety. A doctrine with such exigency of 
defense cannot be true. 

The atonement, as a provision of infinite love for a 
common race in a common ruin of sin, with its unre- 
stricted overture of grace and requirement of saving 
faith in Christ, is, and must be, an atonement for all. 



INDEX. 



FA&M 

Abelarcl, anticipates the Socinian atonement 122 

dissents from Anselm 206 

Acceptilatio, theory of 206 

its affinity with the Anselmic view 207 

Alcott, his method of school-discipline 240 

Alexander, on Isaiah, chapter 53 53 

Alford, on 2 Cor. 5 : 14, 15 323 

Amaraut, a follower of Camero 302 

Angels, interested in human redemption 283 

Anselm, his " Cur Deus Homo " 92 

scientific treatment of atonement 92, 94 

his relation to the theory of Satisfaction 93 

principles of his theory 93-95 

Antlion, the case of Zaleucus 242 

Antinomianism, alien to the Rectoral theory 197 

its relation to the theory of Satisfaction 198 

Aquinas, the active ohedience of Christ 94 

Arminianism, Wesleyan, true to the fact of atonement 209 

less explicit on the doctrine 209 

doctrinal requirement of its soteriology 15, 22, 215 

Arminius, conditional penal substitution 117 

his issues with Calvinism 318 

Athanasius, divine freedom in redemption 208 

Atonement, comprehension of the question 13 

its special doctrinal relations 13 

the questions of fact and doctrine 17 

its scientific relation to theology 19 

definition of 23 

reality of 26 

sense of the original term 39 

instances of, without any sacrifice 41 

its necessity 60 

a truth of Scripture 61 

from the requirements of moral government 63 

from the perfections of God 72 

the nature of 23, 73, 96, 100, 229 

truth of its moral influence. 125 

its rectoral value 237 

elements of its sufficiency 266 

theories of 90 

notion of a ransom to Satan 90 

popular number of theories 95, 120 



344 Index. 

PACl 

Atonement, relation of theory to necessity 97, 230 

principles of scientific classification 96 

summary review , 101 

leading theories U9 

only for the human race 280 

related to all intelligences 65, 281 

its moral grandeur 290 

consistent with the highest reason 294 

accords with the principles of justice 296 

the most imperative ground of duty 299 

the highest revelation of divine love 300 

extent of, concerns the doctrine 190, 302 

in issue between Calvinism and Arminianism 302, 304 

question of its sufficiency for all 304, 331 

determining law of extent 310 

fallacies of limitation 329 

Augustine, believed in a ransom to Satan 91 

the divine freedom in redemption 207 

Baird, realistic view of mankind 113 

Balguy, a representative of the Middle theory 115 

Barnes, on Christ made a curse for us 253 

Baur, his review of Grotius 202 

charges Grotius with acceptilation 205 

Baxter, in the succession of Camero 303 

Bernard, dissents from Anselm 206 

divine freedom in redemption 208 

Blackstone, the end of human punishment 226 

Bledsoe, his doctrine of atonement 214 

philosophic phases of Calvinistic controversy 318 

Bruee, denies penal substitution in Anselm 94 

the Mystical theory 114 

contents of the Socinian theory 122 

perplexities of penal substitution 168 

Christ never under his Father's displeasure 194 

elements of sufficiency in the atonement 266 

universal lesson of the atonement 289 

Buchanan, the Middle theory 115 

the satisfaction of justice 137 

Burge, the New England theory 198 

Bushnell, with the Moral view 34 

modifies his theory 107 

the pre-requisite to forgiveness 108 

law of the divine forgiveness 108 

review of his theory 109 

Butler, a moral government 65 

the insufficiency of repentance 85 

the vicarious principle in human life 295 

('aider, the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 216 

Calvin, literature of Calvinistic controversy 318 

Camero, author of " Hypothetic Universalism " 302 



Index. 345 

PAGE 

Campbell, theory of vicarious repentance 102 

Candlish, on 2 Cor. 5: 14, 15 323 

saving faith the duty of all 326 

ahsolute substitution of Christ 335 

Cappellus, a follower of Camero 303 

Cave, the sense of atonement 39 

theories of atonement 96 

Chalmers, higher orders interested in redemption 281, 284 

Childhood, relation of, to atonement 262 

Christ, his holiness in atonement 15, 266 

his death a reconciliation 42 

a propitiation for sin 46 

a ransom for sinners 48 

his priestly office 54 

himself a sacrifice for sin 55 

a substitute in suffering 191 

not a substitute in penalty 179, 192 

his sufferings necessary to atonement 275 

depth of his suffering 194, 276 

excess of suffering, if penal 308 

suffered as the God-man 278 

his universal Lordship 285 

Chubb, parable of the prodigal son 87 

Cook, on atonement 240 

Cousin, his theory of punishment 123, 124 

Crawford, theories of atonement 95 

the Realistic theory 113 

saving faith the duty of all 326 

the atonement an actual salvation 334 

Cunningham, the scheme of Abelard 122 

sufficiency of atonement for all 308 

Curry, Satisfaction a justification by works 138 

Dale, earlier views of atonement 90 

the theory of Grotius 203 

Delitzsch, on Isaiah, chapter 53 53 

Dick, redeemed sinners without guilt 183 

Dort, the Synod of 199 

Edwards, the elder, and the Edwardean theory 198 

literature of the Calvinistic controversy 318 

Edwards, the younger, and the Governmental theory 198 

Election, distinctions of 303 

Emmons, the New England theory 198 

Episcopius, the literature of Arminianism 318 

Faith, necessary to salvation 30 

distinct office of, in justification 32 

the law of moral influence in atonement 33 

declared the duty of all 326 

not the duty of the unredeemed 337 

order of mental facts in saving faith 327 



346 Index. 

PAOI 

Fisk, D. T., on leading theories of atonement -. 120 

Fifek, Wilbur, literature of Armlnian soteriology 318 

Fletcher, the Calviuistic controversy : 318 

Forgiveness, none on divine sovereignty 79 

of one another A ; §5 

parental forgiveness . f 86 

unconditional, on penal satisfaction 118, 184 

real in the hour of actual salvation 186 

pre-eminently an act of divine grace. 259 

Foster, F. A., the translation of,Grotius 200 

Foster, Bishop, on Calvinism 318 

Gesenius, the sense of atonement 39 

Gilbert, the insufficiency of repentance 4 85 

broader relations of the atonement. . .' 281 

mystery of Christ's suffering 297 

Gillett, a divine moral government 65 

Goinar us, his Calvinism 199 

Goodwin, the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 318 

Government, moral, the fact of 64 

its broader realm and requirements 65 

special requirements for man 66 

one and universal , 290 

Griffin, the Edwardean theory 198 

Grotius, conditional penal substitution 117 

his abilities and learning 198 

author of the Governmental theory. 199 

principles of his theory 201 

on the relaxation of law 203 

his formal rejection of acceptilation 205 

his principles exclude acceptilation 207 

the divine freedom in redemption 207 

not a theory of mere expediency 208 

Guilt, the amenability of sin to penalty 172 

theory of its imputation 173, 175 

cannot exist apart from sin 176 

distinction of guilt and sin 180 

fact of, in redeemed sinners 184 255 

Hagenbach, notion of a ransom to Satan 91 

the theory of Anselm 92 

the acceptilation of Scotus 206 

Hall, holiness in the Mediator 267 

a voluntary substitution 270 

human brotherhood of the Redeemer 274 

Hill, on the sense of redemption 47, 51 

on the Middle theory 115 

the position of Abelard on atonement 122 

atonement sufficient for all 308 

an unconditional salvation 335 

Hodge, A. A., the satisfaction of justice 137 

penal substitution and Arminianism 143 



Index. 347 

PAGE 

Hodge, A. A., merited punishment a necessity of justice.. . , 171 

atonement sufficient for all 308 

determining law of extent in atonement 310 

Hodge, Charles, theories of atonement 95 

the Mystical theory 114 

punishment a necessity of justice 169 

distinction of guilt and demerit 172, 175 

imputed guilt as ground of punishment 173 

distinctions pecuniary and penal substitution 182 

Satisfaction the only pacification of conscience 196 

erroneous views of the Rectoral theory 225, 227 

the atonement sufficient for all x 308, 316 

salvation the privilege of all 325 

atonement made for only a part 335 

on secret and perceptive divine will. 341 

Incarnation, the, an element of atonement 276 

two facts of self-sacrifice 277 

Infraredemptarianism 303 

Intercession, of Christ in heaven ; 58 

Irenaeus, notion of a ransom to Satan 90 

Jane way, atonement sufficient for all 307 

an unconditional salvation 335 

Jenkyn, elements of sufficiency in atonement 266 

the commercial redemption , 274 

vicarious suffering in atonement 275 

Justice, its doctrinal relation to atonement 144 

distinctions of 144 

as punitive in God 147 

as satisflable 150 

public, relation of, to atonement 217 

divine, in moral administration 218 

sin the only ground of its penalties 219 

the nature and fact of 222 

penally retributive for rectoral ends 234 

Justification, the sense of, in Calvinism 13, 138 

in the Arminian sense 15, 33, 258 

on the condition of faith 32 

distinct office of faith in 34 

Knapp, earlier views of atonement 90 

on the theory of Anselm 93 

Leibnitz, justice and benevolence 147 

Lombard, dissents from Anselm 206 

favors the view of Abelard 122 

Lovvtb, on Isaiah, chapter 53 53 

litither, the guilt and punishment of Christ 179 

Macknight, on reconciliation 45 

on ajuaprta as sin-offering 251 



348 Index. 

PAGE 

Magee, on the sense of atonement 39 

on sins of ignorance 40 

the insufficiency of repentance 85 

Maurice, with the Moral theory 34 

Maxcy, the Edwardean theory 198 

WClintock and Strong, on Grotius 199 

on Camero and his theory 303 

Nazaritis, divine freedom in redemption 308 

Neander, on the theory of Anseltn 93 

denies to it the sense of penal substitution 94 

Newton, concerning guilt in redeemed sinners 185 

O rf gen, theory of a ransom to Satan 91 

held an atonement for other orders 280 

Owen, active and passive obedience of Christ 139 

substitution in identical penalty 140 

on justice 145 

justice must punish sin 170 

the atonement sufficient for all 308 

literature of Calvinism and Arminianism 318 

salvation in Christ unconditional 334 

O xe nli am, earlier views of atonement 90 

the notion of a ransom to Satan 91 

the theory of Anselm 92 

denies to it the sense of penal substitution 94 

Paley, the end of human punishment 226 

Park, the Edwardean theory 198 

Penalty, laws of its measure 69 

grounds of its necessity 71 

irremissible on the doctrine of Satisfaction 149 

ends of its infliction 70, 221 

the only rational account of it 222 

remissible on proper grounds 228 

remissibility gives place for atonement 229 

its rectoral value 233 

Placaeus, a follower of Camero 302 

Pope, attributes acceptilation to Grotius 205 

Price, a representative of the Middle theory 117 

Propitiation, the sense of 45 

Christ a propitiation for sin — 46 

Punishment, a judicial infliction of penalty 71 

demerit its only just ground 219 

may not exceed demerit 69 

its relation to divine disposition 154 

as an obligation of divine veracity 158 

as a requirement of judicial rectitude 162 

the duration of 78, 166 

perplexities of, by substitution 168 

concerning the satisfaction of conscience 196 

combination of retributive and rectoral elements 224 



Index. 349 

PAGB 

Randies, the rationale of atonement 18 

the insufficiency of repentance 85 

the divine Trinity iu soteriology 260 

Raymond, his doctrine of atonement 213 

the nature of justification 213 

the sense of satisfaction 245 

Christ suffered as the God-man 278 

Realism, relation of Christ to mankind 112 

as concerning the incarnation 113 

Reconciliation, by the death of Christ 42 

sense of being reconciled to God 44 

Redemption, the sense of 47 

Christ a ransom for sinners 48 

doctrinal sense of 51 

Repentance, necessary to salvation 81 

not a ground of forgiveness 82 

possible only through redemptive grace 84 

Rigg, on the Realistic theory 113 

Righteousness, the, of God 247 

Ritschl, the history of atonement 14 

the theory of Anselm 92 

Sacrifices, the Levitical 56 

the typical sense of 57 

Christ a sacrifice for sin 55 

Satisfaction, the leading theory of Calvinism 135 

a requirement of the Reformed system 136 

the doctrine of 137, 335 

the absolute requirement of justice 149, 153, 169 

the punishment of sin necessary to 167 

impossible by substitution 168 

denies the grace of forgiveness 260 

an atonement of limited sufficiency 336 

the true sense of 244 

definition of 245 

Sen aff, Satisfaction and limit edatonement 186, 308 

issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 216 

Scott, the literature of Calvinism 318 

Scotus, his theory of acceptilation 206 

Snedd, notion of a ransom to Satan fll 

scientific estimate of " Cur Deus Homo " 92 

active obedience of Christ in atonement 94 

Realism— a generic humanity 113 

the satisfaction of justice 137 

equivalent penal substitution 142 

divine yearning for the perishing 155 

justice must punish sin 171 

concerning the satisfaction of conscience 196 

no guilt in redeemed sinners 256 

atonement as a depository of grace 257 

Christ suffered as the God-man 278 

Sin, in the view of Anselm 93 



350 Index. 



PAGE 

Si ii, its natural consequences not penal 71 

the demerit of 69, 146 

concerning its imputation to Cbrist 172, 179 

Snialley , the New England theory 198 

Suieaton, earlier views of atonement 90 

the theory of Anselm 92 

Satisfaction and the " Federal Theology " 196 

Edwards and the Edwardean theory 198 

issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 216 

atonement sufficient for all 308 

order of mental facts iu saving faith 3^:7 

an unconditional salvation 335 

Smith, the sense of atonement. 39 

on redemption 47 

on the great yearly atonement 57 

Socinus, author of the Moral theory 122 

its consistency with his system 123 

Sophocles, on dfiapria as sin offering 251 

Sovereignty, the, of God 304, 311 

Stillingfleet, in defense of Grotius 210 

Substitution, of Christ for sinners 52 

theory of conditional penal substitution 116 

if penal, salvation not conditional 117, 119 

different senses of penal substitution 140 

as absolute, distinctive of Satisfaction 142 

if absolute, the salvation absolute 334 

as conditionally redemptive 191 

what it replaces in atonement 238 

the only sufficient atonement 243 

Swain, Baur's review of Grotius 202 

Symington, redeemed sinners without guilt 183 

atonement sufficient for all 308 

the overture of grace to all 325 

laboring with perplexing facts 339-341 

Taylor, Isaac, ultimate purpose of the incarnation 291 

Taylor, John, the Middle theory 115 

Terry, on Isaiah, chapter 53 53 

Tomline, Arminian literature 318 

Toplady, Calvinistic literature 318 

Turrettin, justice no claim against the redeemed 183 

atonement sufficient for all 307 

determining law of extent in atonement 310 

doctrines related to extent of atonement 317 

issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 318 

Scripture proofs of limited atonement 319 

order of mental facts in saving faith 327 

I" 11 man, the moral power of the cros9 83 

the holiness of Christ in atonement 267 

Unitarianism, Socinian on atonement 123 

I ' ni versalism, no forgiveness, no salvation 76, 77 



Index. 351 

PAGE 

Warburton, religious faith and civil government 68 

the atonement by Zaleucus 242 

Wardlaw, "distinctions of justice 145 

Warren, Grotius and the Edwardean theory 109 

Watson, the great yearly atonement 58 

conditional penal substitution 117 

chief Methodist writer on atonement 210 

modification of the theory of Satisfaction 211 

doctrinal requirement of his principles 211 

higher orders acquainted with redemption 282 

wider benefits of the atonement 293 

doctrinal issues with Calvinism 318 

"Weeks, the New England theory 198 

Wesley, Arminian literature 318 

Westminster Confession, on sovereign grace 15 

substitution in precept and penalty 188 

absolute limitation of atonement 337 

Wh eclon, nature of the atonement 212 

neither sin nor punishment transferable 192, 212 

philosophic phases of Calvinistic controversy 318 

Whitby, literature of Arminianism 318 

Witsius, atonement sufficient for all 306 

issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 318 

salvation without condition 335 

Wood, on Christ made a curse for us 253 

Worcester, forgiving one another 85 

parable of the prodigal son 87 

Wrath, the, of God 245 

You ng;, redemption by love • 104 

moral power of the cross 127 

Zaleucus, his atonement for his son 241 

requirement of an adequate substitution 243 



THE END. 



JUL 31 1907 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper p 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxk 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnolc 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESER 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

fVanhorrw TnwtmQhm PA 1fifl 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 226 924 7 



